In the News: May 13, 2008
South Berwick residents reject funds for extra snow removal costs …
Foster’s Daily Democrat
It could’ve been quick and easy - a short period of public comment, three questions determined by a yea or nay voice vote, and a hand count if the vote was too close to determine by ear.
South Berwick police: Pair was stealing items to sell as scrap metal
Foster’s Daily Democrat
After stealing four bicycles, a freezer, and a lawn mower from a home on
South Berwick students hike through their town’s history
Foster’s Daily Democrat
Cars and trucks rumble past the houses on
Police say juvenile was in possession of stolen property from …
Foster’s Daily Democrat
Police have arrested a girl and are searching for accomplices in connection with thefts from two downtown churches.
Berwick fire chief says more crew needed for frequency of calls
Foster’s Daily Democrat
But some town residents have questioned the validity of Plante’s numbers, saying the Berwick Fire Department is dispatched by
May 13th, 2008 at 9:20 am
What is meant by “if the articles are continually voted down, then the town auditors will “make an adjustment” to the budget, according to acting interim Town Manager Roberta Orsini.” Does that mean that money will be appropriated anyway?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
essentially yes. the money has already been paid out, so at the end of the day, the auditors will make the adjustment to the rest of the town’s balance sheet.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Then what is the point of voting not to adopt the articles, and continuing to have meetings about it?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
TOnight there will be an informational session on the recall amendment to the charter.
http://www.southberwickmaine.org/Public_Documents/SouthBerwickME_BBoard/01F7BE34-000F8513.0/RecallElection.pdf
After reading the provision, I don’t thinks the standard for recall is high enough for me to support it.
I believe we should have the right to recall an elected official, but the standard can not be so low as to allow for witch hunts.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
No, I see what you mean. I am unable to go to the meeting. I wonder if they will take input from the meeting and redesign it.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
DW (NTEC) Right on. The bar would be incredibly low. Under the proposal, only 10% of voters in the last gubuenatorial election are required tro petition a recall. That’s only 280 people. It took 1,000 to 2,000 to elect Councilors, and only 280 to recall?? 280 people are against virtually any decision the Council makes. It would promote “witch hunts” and would discourage any leadership when it’s required. It is “sour grapes” for people not willing to wait for a legitimate election. It’s wrong-headed, and should be strongly opposed.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I agree the recall should be defeated, for the reasons Bill and Dave have outlined above.
Ladyjane, I think the process in the case of an initiative like this is that it can’t be redesigned in process because it was a charter amendment initiated by citizen petition. It will be before us “as is” on the June 10 ballot, when polls will be open in town hall all day as in a regular election. Citizens should vote against it. Then, if someone wants design a better recall process, start from scratch.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Bill,
I don’t neccessarily oppose the 280 signature to force the recall ballot, because then the rest of the town would vote on it. What I oppose is the low standard for which a petition can be called.
The part where it says “such reasons need not constitue legal cause”
is what bothers me.
That will cause no end of trouble and expense everytime some one gets a hair out of place and enough signatures to force a recall which would have a good chance of failing.
If it fails, then the money would have been spent for naught. If it succeeds, who will want to run for council?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Here is what came from an article sent out by the Maine Municipal Asssociation:
While recall may be appropriate in some instances, it is not necessarily the right response to every political disappointment or dispute. If your community is considering a recall charter provision, we recommend that the threshold for the number of signatures required on a recall petition be set high enough to prevent a small minority from forcing frivolous or repetitive recall elections.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Gretchen,
That’s intersting…. the Maine Municipal Association has written on recalls. And they recommend a “high bar” for a recall, so that “frivolous or repetitive” recalls do not occur. That’s the opposite of what we seem to have here : A small number of votes…. no legitimate reason for recall…. could be personal…… It seems like the amendment before us is a knee jerk reaction against tough decisions made by our Council. I agree with Dave W.: who would run for council with this “harassment” provision out there? Stay tuned, and vote against in June!
May 13th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I believe that there should be a provision in the charter for a recall. But I do not believe that proposed provision is realistic. I agree with Sharon that the exisitng Town Council has had to make some tough decisions in a less than ideal situation, and while I may not agree with all of the decisions they have made I truely believe that they were made with the towns best interest in mind.
I think that the best thing to do is get through our current situation and then vote on a realistic provision at a later date. Lets not go on a witch hunt and potentially make it so no one wants to run for council.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I am opposed to the recall charter amendment.
As drafted the recall election charter amendment allows, for any reason, 282 petitoners to overturn the results of elections to public office, effectively, subverting the will of the citizens who elected the councilors is the first place. The ability of less than 300 petitioners to repeatedly, over and over, seek to recall councilors interfers with a deliberative process and forces councilors to continually be looking over their shoulders on every decision, large or small.
As we saw at last Monday evening’s special town meeting, important matters are decided by a majority of as few as 50 voters. I question if the other 2000 voters who typically vote during the November elections will find the time to come out to answer the recalls.
We are still in the recovery process from questionable decisions made by the sitting council majority prior to the 2007 elections. There are those that believe we were on the proper course prior to that election. I don’t agree. We had a government which was non-responsive, ineffective and failed to illustrate any cogent vision for the future. Decisions made by that majority and administration continue to haunt us now. The failure to bill $400,000 in taxes, lack of oversight that led to a single department overspending $250,000, with little detail of the expenditures, are only now coming to light. The mystery that we call the Regional Maintenance Facility continues to run off the books.
The June 10 vote is about more than the recall petition. It is a challenge and opportunity for the voters of South Berwick to choose if they want to show up and participate or sit back and be led.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am
I wonder how strong the connection (if any) there is between teh $250,000 winter maintenance over-run, and the mystery facility that is the Regional Maintenance Facility. When I asked about the finances of that facility at the budget hearing, Town officials said it was an essentially and “off - budget” item. Off-budget? What’s that? What are the real costs out there? How big’s that financial hole? What are the real deficits for that facility?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I haven’t been able to find any data about the regional maintenance facilty anywhere.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
In response to the previous entries concerning the recall provision, there were over 20% of the votes needed and that number, as I understand it, was 653. The supporters of this amendment have continued to get signatures in the event that more are needed. Looking at these numbers, I would disagree that this was a small number and I guess its up to the towns people to speak on June 2nd and 10th. I believe that the numbers really speak loudly now. Change is always…A good thing
May 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Brian,
I think what people are refering to is that, if passed, the provision allows for as few as 280 signatures on a petition to recall someone.
Some people feel that is too low a number.
The signatures you are refering to are for getting the recall provision on the ballot.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Dave:Once in place, a motion to ratify would follow and should be discussed before implementing. The town can tweak it as needed.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Brian, Not the case. If it passes, it’s part of the charter. No tweaking. Law. The amendment allows a very low bar for recall: 281 voters overturning 1,000 to 2,000 votes to elect a councillor. That’s irresponsible, and is anti-democracy. People should be abe to trust that when they vote in a November election for Councilors, that a small minority of disgruntled people can’t overturn democracy. Who would run for Council? Who would make hard decisions? 280 people would be against any council decision.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I have been quite for some time, waiting and reading what some people have to say, Well now it is my time to chime in.
What I believe this amendment does is put the Councilor notice, that before they make a decision, maybe they should speak to the people and not make a decision, that betters thier own agenda.
The actions of some people at some of the town meetings (ie. Tuesday night) are childish and they should be ashamed of how they acted. To go on the attack the way it was done, was crossing the line in a big way. I use to have respect for (Mr. K), but now I have a lot less respect for him. An I hate to say it, but it does not put his wife (a councilor) in the best position either.
The problem with this town (some people with in it, not all) is that we need to bring a business into it that will help take the tax burden off the property owners and those living on fixed incomes.
All the little shops in town are cute, but how much does a little shop bring in tax wish, compared to a business like Pratt and Whitney. I’m not saying that the shops we have in town are bad, but if this town does not get over this idea of keeping the town a “village”. An bring in some real business, then this town will always be fighting about Budgets and Taxes.
I have lived in this town all my life and my hope was that my kids would would be able to live here to. But with less and less work or affordable housing (due to taxes) I fear they will be living some where else beside South Berwick or even the State of Maine.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Bill,Please forward me the info that you have on this subject as I am unfamiliar with what you mean about NO Tweaking Law. There are already tools in place in this country and state that allow laws to be changed. I welcome your comments. I have worked in this field before!
May 16th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Brian,
The proposed amendment clearly states that to force a recall vote, the minimum required signatures on a petition can be no less than 10% of the people who voted in the last election, but not less than 100.
The last election had 2800 people voting which means that if 280 people sign a petition, then the person who is the object of the petition can either resign, or a recall vote will take place.
Once it is made part of the charter, wouldn’t it then take another petition and vote to ammend the charter again to change it?
If we vote it in, I believe it is voted in as it is written, because that language is what is voted on.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:50 am
DW has it right. This IS the charter change; if passed ; it’s becomes the charter word for word. There is no changing it before the vote; and if passed, it’s charter. A totally new process would have to esue to change it. In the meantime, the irresponsibly low threshhold for recall would apply, and that, or threat of that, could make a mockery of our democratic elections.
Brian, read the charter. On the town website, go to ORDINANCES, and find your way to the charter. It’s all there.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am
There is also a link to a sample ballot for the recall provision on the town web site,
It’s on the right hand side under charter amendment.
The entire provision is there.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:03 am
You are correct about what will be voted in, that which stands now will apply. There seems to be some fear of the use of this amendment. There are also laws of protection that apply to the frivolous use of this law. My point on the numbers from before still shows us that more than the 280 of the peolple needed are interested in this change. The percentage that exists has been determined before by law so if the people want to change it then we will do so by law. I really dont understand why the fear if everyone is doing his or her job then this will never have to be used but by its presence it holds public officials accountable for their actions and thus preventing further reoccurrance of the issues of the recent past. It is simply put… a tool… and it has exited in this state for some time. We as a town body, I believe, can adopt a version of this if it doesn’t suit us. I will persue this with my mentors to see where we stand, Thanks so much for the great input, we need this place to talk. Too bad we can’t do it at town hall! Thanks neighbor
May 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Brian,
I agree we should have a recall provision in the charter, I just believe that there should be a higher minimum signatures to force the recall, as well as some clarification on what constitutes reason for recall.
As written, it looks like you can force a recall vote if you get 280 poeple who don’t like the color of someones socks.
I understand that there are some protections in state law, but the proposal as written just seems too open for potential abuse.
If we do change the charter to allow for a recall, we should set the minimum signature up around a minimum of 1/3 of the people who voted in the last election, but no less than 500 signatures, if not more.
That would set the level high enough so that it would take a serious issue to get the required signatures, not just because I didn’t like the way one of the council memebers voted on something.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am
thanks Bill …way ahead of you Where is your fear coming from? There has been a threat? If there is fear about this then there must be something wrong somewhere. Lets look at the big picture. I personally dont what one or several individuals running my town with reckless abandon and Im sure all the voters are with me on this. Dont be afraid of the big wrench in the tool box, its there for the big jobs.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Very well put Dave!!! I commend you for that last comment. As long as there are protections in place than this ammendment could not be abused. I believe, but an not sure that there may be as many as 800 or more interested in this change and that surely meets the numbers you agree on. We are on the same page Dave.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Brian,
Come on…. Did you go to the meeting last Tuseday night? The petition was instigated by 5 people; including 3 former councillors (two of which were defeated in recent elections). Opposition to this power grab comes from obvious places. Councillors are asked to make tough decisions. There is opposition to any decision. This provision would be used as a threat any time a tough decision is facing the council. Vote them in or out at regular elections, where high percentages of voters are likely to vote. Not in “kangaroo court” type shenanagins. As written, this amendment is a club to stop tough decision making. Sure 600 peope signed the petition. Abilkity to recall sounds good. But how many read the 3 pages of attachment, which specifically outlined the “hair trigger” nature of this.
I suggest that a Charter Commission be established for this narrow recall idea, and tghat it get broad input frtom many people and points of view. The result of that p[rocess, I predict, would be a level-headed, reasonable recall provision; and not the hysterical one that we are voting on in June.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
VOTE NO IN JUNE ON THIS PARTICULAR DAMAGING AMENDMENT, then chart a course for level-headed development of this issue which is fair, not disruptive, is truly democratic, and works for the entire citizenry.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Bill , I dont have the 3 pages of attachment you speak of, could you email these to me? I dont remember seeing this info. Spiritbear56@juno.com Im speaking on my behalf as a signature on that petition as well as for my family members. I was not present at the last meeting, I was away. But that incident has nothing to do with the changes I want. You seem to be a little heated in your comments and thats not going to serve the community any good. But if there is an issue of personal nature please feel free to contact me, Im in the book. Thanks for your input Bill, Im sure we are all on the same page. Maybe we could all get together for a coffee sometime and discuss things. Its difficult sometimes to hear the tone of things when we are useing this mode of communication. thanks neighbor
May 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Brian, they are reproduced on the Town Ballot for the measure, which is on the Town website. That you did not see this is more evidence of the way in which the petition was circulated. Everone I talked to that signed it did not see it either.
I’m not “heated” at all. I am just being clear on where, in my opinion, the motivations for this petition came from. (It seems obvious, based on teh circumstances). I am certain, however, that this vote is very important, and that this amendment is essentially a power grab, and bad for democracy in S. Berwick.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Brian,
Your name sounds familiar to me.
Did we perhaps work at the same place off of Ten Rod Road up in Rochester?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:55 am
OK Bill, I hear you,now email me the info so that I may know too! Thanks for the input.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Dave, were you a machinist? I worked for Kidder Press, Moore Business Forms and Eastern Air Devices in Dover NH.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Brian, they are reproduced on the Town Ballot for the measure, which is on the Town website.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Brian,
No I wasn’t, I worked for Cabletron until they sold the manufacturing facility.
I worked in an engineering group responsible for the manufacturing server equipment.
Your name does sound familiar though.
I may be merging two different people for all I know.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Bill, help me here,You stated 3 pages of attachment, I am holding the ballot in front of me, I see the language but dont see an attachment, its just one page.so again What do you want me to look at and why? Im a little confused???
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Bill, I am refurring to the petition that we were commenting about. Look at your previous comment about having 3 attachments, thats the info I would like to review. Thanks
May 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Dave, I did work for Power Electronics in Rochester then in Manchester and alot of our people did go to Cabletron. I used to go to Cabletron for sourse inspections.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
The attachment was 2 1/2 pages. It had additional stuff about the formulation and origins of the petition. The guts of the amendment, and the details that were important to understand if signing the petition, are part of the ballot.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Thanks Bill but Im still interested in that 2 and a half pages of info that you refer too, can you forward that too me please? thanks
May 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I can do that tonight, or you could get that in person at Town hall, or from the petitioners.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Thanks Bill for your help, I look forward to this info. Spiritbear56@juno.com Have a quality Day
May 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
There’s been a lot of discussion here and around town on the budget, and rightly so, but we should also note that at last week’s meeting, the town council passed at long last the update to the South Berwick Comprehensive Plan.
Plans aren’t things that exactly generate a lot of excitement. As was often noted during the debate before passage, none of the Comp Plan recommendations have the force of law unless the council puts them into ordinance form and passes them.
Still, congratulations are in order. The process that got this new plan written involved thousands of hours of diverse citizens and officials working together, debating and compromising. Chair Jack Shipley and his entire steering committee are owed our thanks for seeing the Comp Plan through from its initiation by an earlier town council of 2002.
And so is our current town council, for finally passing it. There has been a lot of talk lately about economic development. It goes without saying that this means smart development, COMMUNITY development, that benefits us. We don’t want development that just enriches outside corporations while inadvertently raising our taxes, miring us in traffic and sending our quality of life down the drain. The town’s best assurance of getting healthy growth is to follow a thoughtful plan that has had broad-based input, like the Comp Plan.
Our current town council “gets it.” They show signs of being the best we have had in a long time. In just a few months they have passed the Comp Plan, put South Berwick on track for a new library and downtown revitalization with the St. Michael’s purchase, and confronted a very difficult budget situation, making nearly $1 million in cuts and greatly reducing the tax burden from the one foreseen by the former town manager.
Together with interim town manager Roberta Orsini, the current council is leading South Berwick ahead. I’m not sure enough citizens realize this. Those of us who believe this is a good direction should please speak up.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Hi all
there is no recall law in the State of Maine.
There is further, no need for a charter amendment, an ORDINANCE would be sufficient.
This is by Home Rule.
Is a recall amendment /ordinance necessary ? I personally believe, NO. Since moving here I have attended numerous Town Council meetings, I was not very happy with a lot of the decisions made by the council in the last four years, but I never thought about removal by recall vote ( a very expensive endeavor) I tried to argue my views at public comment, and I voted for councilors who I believed would be more attentive to my concerns, at the next election.
Democracy is not , The majority wins, but a consensus building, then there is a vote.
George
May 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Geroge,
I would agree that there is no immediate need for a charter ammendment / ordinance, however, that does not mean we should not be prepared for the future.
I don’t feel the current proposed ammendment has a high enough standard, or a high enough number of minimum signatures needed to force a recall vote, but I do feel we should entertain the idea of either an ammendent or ordinance that would allow for recalls in the future.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
DW, I agree. I have suggestedthe right thing is to VOTE NO IN JUNE ON THIS PARTICULAR DAMAGING AMENDMENT, then chart a course for level-headed development of this issue which is fair, not disruptive, is truly democratic, and works for the entire citizenry. A Charter Commission could be established that would get broad input from many people and points of view. The result of that process, I predict, would be a reasonable recall provision; and not the one that we are voting on in June.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
hope everyone visits http://janus.state.me.us and studies MRSA 30-A before the vote on June 10th, its a good read!
May 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
is this site working?
May 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I couldn’t post before, I hope everyone goes to the Maine State Statutes and studies MSRA 30-A before the vote on June 10th, its a good read!
May 19th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Nice link, Brian
May 20th, 2008 at 6:50 am
As an FYI, I couldn’t access it via the link; for some reason I was denied. I had to google ‘maine state statutes’, then find the list of revisions.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:05 am
janus.state.me.us will get you there!
May 20th, 2008 at 7:44 am
It doesn’t for me! But thanks anyway. I still get a message saying ‘Directory Listing Denied’.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The actual link appears to be
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/
May 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Anyone else having a problem posting today?
May 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Nope