This letter was published in the latest issue of Barnstable Enterprise. It was read at the public hearing of the Barnstable Charter Commission the other night. Richard Clark tossed it in the circular file last night.
The Greater Hyannis Civic Association expended a fair amount of time and effort through a subcommittee over 3 1/2 months, reported our findings to our members for their concurrence and reported our findings to you last May. We believe you recognized that effort with kind words but we must say that we didn't see or hear much about our suggestions in your discussions, nor do we see much in your preliminary report that addresses the main issue of citizen disenfranchisement in our present charter. To quote our May 8th report, "As an overall comment, a large number of residential owners feel disenfranchised and loss of control of their government under the present workings of our charter. There is also a lack of checks and balances within the structure of the town."
Frankly, we don't see that changing much after reviewing your report and would like to emphasize some major issues that need to be addressed or changed.
1. You must untangle and separate the legislative branch from the executive branch. This has not worked for the benefit of the majority in our town. You must give the voters that power in electing their chief executive. The council president concept does not solve this problem but, in our opinion, just confuses it.
2. Residential property owners tax levy, since this charter has been in force, has risen from 78% to over 90%, which should give us all something to think about. This is wrong and we strongly recommend that a Finance Committee be established that has a heavier hand and better represents taxpayers who pay the bills. Budgets are great but there are always two different sides to money matters depending on whether you are working under the budget or paying for it.
We do not feel that our Finance Advisory Committee has worked effectively over the Charter years. This town now requires over $150 million to operate and produces a two inch thick document. You have to have number-oriented people working on this year round to fully understand the numbers and their meaning. Presenting a document of this complexity to our Town Council and expecting them to fully understand it in a meaningful way is not realistic.
We would like to see more elective and/or appointed officers in Barnstable.
A. The voters have already spoken loud and clear on the Town Clerk position when the question was placed on the ballot last November. Why you wish to disregard this and go against this message in your report is a little baffling.
B. We believe the position of Head Assessor should also be elected. This is a very basic and important task and we believe needs a major independent review and possibly lead to needed changes. This will never happen with the present structure.
C. Personnel Board should be appointed by the Council and have executive powers to set pay grades and pay scales. Some 70% of the cost of running the town is in labor costs and it deserves top attention. There are many other issues in your report that have already been raised in the hearings, but there is one that we would like to still bring up. The issue is Recall, which you eliminated and we strongly disagree with that decision. We believe this should remain as a right. Instead of completely eliminating it, you should have simply increased the difficulty of a recall by raising the requirement to 5% for district positions and 10% for at large.
We often wonder why more people don't engage in the democratic process. Frankly, even though the voter will now vote for 5 councilors instead of one, the dynamics of your proposed Charter, in our opinion, will not change the business workings of our town. We often have people say to us, "What's the use, they do what they want anyway." This may sound like a cop out at first but think about it. If you are not part of the gang, you just don't go to the party.
Lastly, it appears that this Charter Commission is finding difficulty in putting forth a Charter with an elective chief executive which, it seems, many people want. Why not find a way to let the people decide by letting them vote and make the decision on this issue.
Tony Pelletier
President
Greater Hyannis Civic Association
For more Letters to the Editor of the Barnstable Enterprise, see:
Excellent letter from Mr. Pelletier! Tony, the answer to your question is simple. He said, WHY NOT FIND A WAY TO LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE BY LETTING THEM VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE?
Tony, this is not possible here. THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH LIKE DEMOCRACY!
Look, the good news is that so many more NEW people have just witnessed this SECOND and LAST BAG JOB put together by Klimm. The only question I have is how much his promises cost? Klimm is nthing but scum in my opinion. But one does have to hand it to him. He SURE can get the bag job done!
Look at his two latest accomplishments:
1. A 5 year contract extension and he never needed ONE vote from one voter or taxpayer!
2. He gets to bag job the latest charter where the VOTERS in town wanted a Mayor..... Why? Because he KNOWS damn well that he COULD NEVER win against ANYONE! A high school sophomore could beat this idiot to run this town and any one WOULD!
Tony, excellent letter.
Posted by: John Julius | March 27, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Eric:
Please try to get the download of the meeting from Thursday night.
Sue Rohrbach CLEARLY tells Clark that it was her impression that that they would not be taking any votes....she also said that Debbie Fitton had called and it was her understanding and impression too and that she had left Clark a message. At the end, she said that "but I did tell her that and she seemed concerned about that."
In other words, according to SUE's OWN TESTIMONY, NEITHER OF THEM expected to be voting on anything! SO WHY DID THEY?
And what about that ASSWIPE so called CONSULTANT who ripped us all for FIFTY GRAND?!
WHY DIDN'T HE SAY SOMETHING? HE SAT THERE and WITNESSED what we all did!
This should be sent to the MASS Attorney General and to the Secretary of State Bill Galvin for their Attorney's to review. It is PITIFUL that the DICTATOR ASS Clark basically FORCED this VOTE. There should also be an INVESTIGATION to see IF CLARK KNEW that POYANT would be away because I think he KNEW DAMN WELL that Poyant would be gone, which is WHY HE FORCED this VOTE, in my opinion!
It is PUTRID! And so is the MAGGOT Richard Clark!
Posted by: John Julius | March 27, 2009 at 11:28 PM
I was there and Sue Rohrbach said that there wasn't going to be any votes last night. I stood for the entire meeting and the next meeting is in the Small Conference room on the second floor of the Town Hall at 7:00 PM.
These Consultants are poor. How can they assume that the 2011 elections were going to be the intended transition period?
How could the consultants state that the Charter Commission can make the transition document "anything you want"?
What are we paying these "experts" for????
Posted by: Oliver P. Cipollini, Jr. | March 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Constitution of the People
Comments to the Charter Commission
Barnstable High School ~ March 25, 2009 @ 7:00 PM
By Oliver P. Cipollini, Jr.
20 Biscyne Drive
Marstons Mills, MA 02648-1653
OCipollini@aol.com
About three years ago, serious thoughts were made by many that this town’s government needed extreme change. The idea to petition the town to adopt such change emerged with the suggestion that our town needed a study to search for a new governing body to establish new fundamental rules to govern our town. This was not just a handful of dissident bloggers as the Cape Cod Times editorial indicated on Tuesday, March 24th. It was a huge number of residents that seek accountability with a more representative council of our diverse villages that populate our town and a new person that would oversee the day to day operations and manage the plan of the legislative body. This individual would most likely be elected and accountable to the residents of our growing town.
This new constitution would become our blueprint for our changing times and would allow for a more representative legislature configured with each unique village identity and needs in mind. The document will also lend to the cohesiveness of the law-making body for the entire town’s geographical layout.
Our petition was well received by voters and over 7000 signatures were gathered to show support in defining a new document that our Town would use as their new governing roadmap and our new Town Constitution.
This document was the tool to elect a new Charter Commission. It has become a tool for many needed revisions. During the collection of signatures, many people spoke of a need for accountability by an elected chief executive (a Council President is not an answer to this dilemma). They also asked for a better representation of their concerns. The Commission suggested a better representation for our town’s councilors by realigning bordering precincts into five districts and having four councilors representing the town as a whole or at large.
The proposed recommendation by our charter commission of five equally representative districts is not an answer. Why? The answer is that the current proposed charter can not be enacted until 2013 since the census will not be available until then to raise the current number of precincts from thirteen to fourteen. Since we need five equal sized districts, an odd number of precincts would have to be move the figure up to fifteen.
A survey was conducted during the Presidential Election last November and almost but not quite ninety (90%) of the 400 surveyed throughout the villages polling places preferred an elected chief official rather than an appointed one.
Question: Why did our Consultants that were allocated $40,000 of the Charter Commissioner’s budget not inform the Commission regarding this redistricting problem and that the current configuration that is proposed by the Charter Commission and our Town can not enact this redistricting and the proposed legislative body until 2013.
Shouldn’t there have been some hindsight by the consultants that a preliminary transition document should have been prepared for the review and input of the voters and make this new proposed Constitution’s enactment complete?
This seems to be a mundane “to-do” item on a charter consultant’s agenda before a preliminary product is completed. I hope the Charter Commission considers this poor guidance by these Consultants in their overall review, referral and reference to other municipalities’ seeking Charter consulting.
Let us not throw this charter to the wayside. We are looking at a new set of rules. This document will become a new guide that will become the fundamental tool to govern our Town. This must not be taken lightly. It will establish a ‘ground-zero’ of our new government in which our town will use to grow to become the best it can be.
This document will establish a transition to a new set of fundamental rules to our town’s governing process.
Let us face facts that we may or may not know. We already have a “mayoral form of government in the town of Barnstable.” Instead of having the chief official being selected by seven (7) councilors (seven is the majority of thirteen (13) councilors) let us have the Chief elected officer elected by the 32,000 registered voters.
With these thoughts in mind, let’s put the mayoral issue to a Charter Commission member vote and follow the will of the people!”
Let’s get a clear understanding with the transition document on what happens next. This document should have as many scenarios as possible defined for current administrators and elected officials as far as term limits then and now.
After this transition document is drafted a short series of public comment should be welcomed from the town voters and elected officials. We need to know the rules before we conclude this commission’s work so we can all be safe on the playing field of our town’s new constitution and foundation on which this nation was built and what we call democracy.
Posted by: Oliver P. Cipollini, Jr. | March 27, 2009 at 11:51 PM
I agree 100% with Tony Pelletier, President of the Greater Hyannis Civic Association.
"With these thoughts in mind, let’s put the mayoral issue to a Charter Commission member vote and follow the will of the people!"
Posted by: Oliver P. Cipollini, Jr. | March 27, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Yesterday there was a shindig at a North St. restaurant hosted by the Enterprise. Apparently food and spirits were abundant. It would be interesting to know the exact guest list. It seems to have included key Town Hall employees, councilors, business types, etc. It's not clear if any rank and file residents made the cut. While it's understandable that the Enterprise would want to forge links with this group, it is part of the process which creates the establishment monolith. Throw enough of these mutual stroking opportunities and pretty soon the Enterprise will just be another Patriot. After the charter coup there's a lot of folks who could use some free food and drink to raise their spirits.
Posted by: business as usual | March 28, 2009 at 12:51 PM
You are right. We need to do something to raise our spirits. We've got a long road ahead of us.
We should have a party a Schooners!!!
What do you say?
Posted by: bugsy | March 28, 2009 at 06:40 PM
The idea of a Schooner's bash might not be a bad idea.... I second this motion....
We need Greg to network with his friends and get some people lined up to come.... not a bad idea!
Posted by: John Julius | March 28, 2009 at 07:25 PM
It will take Greg is little while to recognize that it's over and that we have to start, again.
Posted by: bugsy | March 28, 2009 at 08:58 PM
The hyannis Civic assoc. Hit the nail right on the head.
How can we ask Clark what the hell he was thinking the last 12 to 16 months? Even if we could ask we probably wouldn't get an answer. That's how our government functions in this town. We ask they don't repond. We issue a petition with 7000 voices they don't respond.
Posted by: Charter Helper | March 29, 2009 at 12:28 AM