Your account does not include highlighter on images.
Searches Highlighted on Image
| December 15, 2006 Barnstable Patriot |  |
|
©
Publisher. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 7 (7 of 38 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
December 15, 2006 |
|
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader 
|
^Se-aWc <$*re^W$^
I WWV'** \
&MmmlT ^^mum ^llllLMw
W^n***n**
m* I
t
By Michael Daley
columnist@barnstab!epatnot.com
The
last town
meeting we held
in Barnstable
was 17 years ago. I
know that I was there.
However, I don't have
any particularly special
memory of it.
There were a lot of
town meetings during
the 1980s. I was also at most sessions of just about
all of those meetings.
Since our local government change was voted
in 1989, we have used a town manager and a town
council to administer to our municipal manage-
ment needs. We have had three town managers and
three councils with a membership that started at
18. The next council dropped to 11 and it finally
grew to the present 13 members. We have always
elected the members as representatives by pre-
cinct. We once voted for two of 18. Now we only vote
for one of 13.
Lately I'm beginning to think I was somewhere
else during all those town meeting years of mine.
I've been hearing all these stories about the good
old town meeting days. Have you heard them also?
There 's quite a bit of talk about just how horrible
this almost 20-year-old government of ours is. I've
heard it said that when we had town meeting we
had a real democracy. One primary gripe is that the
change from a town meeting system to a council
system reduced the public 's right to comment.
Either I was somewhere else or these complaints
are unfounded. At all of the town meetings I at-
tended there was debate. Only elected members
could vote. Residents could comment during the
debate. The moderator allowed some latitude;
however, either he or a member would never allow a
speaker to get too far astray.
I have no memory of our town meeting allow-
ing anyone to speak in a free form to any subject
that they selected. The business before our town
meeting was structured and parliamentary. The
room was managed. Elected and certain appointed
officials were required to sit in specific areas. It was
a room of respect and decorum. It was good local
government in action.
Our current municipal system doesn't provide a
strong centrally elected leader. Given that lack of a
system of natural public access to a strong political
leader, our town council has allowed considerable
public access time on its agenda. This group allows
the public to speak freely on any subject for a lim-
ited time at every meeting.
This gracious gesture by the town council has
not been working. Our councilors will continue
to further struggle with this matter deeper into
this month. They will strive to balance their need
to civilly conduct our town's business with the
public's perceived need for an open and accessible
municipal government. They will do what they do
because they are dedicated to this town. They are
certainly not trying to be anti-American , as one fool
has suggested.
To state that this council is taking away our right
to free speech is ludicrous. To suggest that citizens
had more rights back when we had a town meet-
ing form of government is disingenuous. There was
never a "public comments" item on any town meet-
ing warrants.
We all deserve a pleasant holiday season. That
includes our elected leaders. So, the next time you
see a councilor try to remember to thank them.
That's one public comment seldom heard by our
leaders.
Michael Daley was chairman of the successful 1988-89 charter com-
mission and is now principal in a municipal consulting business. He
lives in Marstons Mills.
Recalling the
'good oP days'
accurately
"Shredding the
Constitution ... "
By Hillard Welch
1776@netscape.com
This series is written by a private citizen
with an abiding interest in U.S. history
and particularly its founding documents:
The Declaration of Independence and The
Constitution.
***
"The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shallnot be suspended , unless
when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public safety may require it."Art.
I, Sec. 9[2]
***
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist
No. 84, emphasized the significance of
the writ of habeas corpus in its protec-
tion against "the favorite and most
formidable instruments of tyranny."
For,literally,without the protection
of the writ of habeas, anindividualcan
bejailed for unknown or spurious rea-
sons and never heard from again.This
is,of course,exactlywhat happened in
Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.It
also happened in other dictatorships
as a means of eliminating the opposi-
tion to the party in power.
Americans have an all-too-short
memory and fail to remember that
Abraham Lincoln suspended the
writ during the Civil War. Franklin
Roosevelt suspended it when he in-
carcerated the Japanese Americans,
uprooting them from their homes and
herding them into "camps."
We have now witnessed another
president doing the same thingunder
the guise of "protecting" the United
States from terrorists and "enemy
combatants."
Under current case law, the defini-
tion of an"enemycombatant"issome-
one engaged in armed conflict with the
U.S. However, under the new law just
passed and signed by President Bush,
it includes anyone who "purposely
and materially" supports hostilities
against the United States. Individuals
"suspected" of such activity may be ap-
prehended ,jailed and held essentially
incommunicado indefinitely.
What has happened to America's
sense ofjustice? Have we moved so far
toward animperialpresidency that our
checks and balances of government no
longer apply? Do we seriously believe
that every human being, regardless of
race,creed or color,isnot equal under
our laws? Is it now considered proper
for "certain" individuals to be sub-
jected to discriminatoryactionwithout
substantiation of wrong-doing?
Whilewe are at it,let'sreview afew of
the "unconstitutional"actions of "our
government" in recent times.
Invasion of Iraq. Some will say that
Congress approved the invasion of
Iraq. I disagree, since the President
made the decision. Congresshad voted
to give the President such authority.
However, Congress did not have the
power to delegate such authority to
the president since only Congress can
declare war. (Art. I, Sec. 8 [11]).
"Granting or delegating " such
authority to a president essentially
creates dictatorial powers,something
totally foreign to the original concept
of our government. Needless to say,
George Washington would have ve-
toed any such legislation on the part
of Congress!
Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Effectively removingthe writ ofhabeas
corpus is totally without substance in
the constitution (Art. I, Sec. 9 [2]) and
should be declared so by the Supreme
Court. Will it? Kind of doubtful in
today's "anything goes" atmosphere.
North American Union and the
Security and Prosperity Partnership.
CONTINUED ON PAGE A:14
3/ke K&mMttutiUm
A citizen 's view
¦ By Paul Gauvln I
pgauvin@bamstablepatriot.com
Change attitudes , not
agenda, to salvage public
comment
Was
it just a fluke or did Town Coun-
cilor Hank Farnham's final initiative
as councilpresident last week actu-
ally make a difference even though it didn't
come to a vote? Consider this:
Farnham's attempt to foster changes in
the public comment process, first of all,
didn't generate much opposition given the
amount of indignant clamor it spawned
amongthe town'shandful of serial commen-
tators and free-speech sentinels.
One perceives the target of Farnham's
objective was not just the sometimes adver-
sarial tenor of a few critics who show up at
the meetings. There also seemed to be an
appeal to the blog demimonde to tone down
the deprecating rhetoric occasionally woven
into its interesting revelations.
On the day of the Dec. 7 meeting, a
Citizen for Open Government (COG) blog
from Gary Lopez, gadfly, statistician and
ubiquitous critic of nearly everythingthat is
official Barnstable, wrote a piece in which he
compared Hank Farnham and some other
officials in general to "Kamikaze pilots"
aimingto rain devastation upon taxpayers.
On Dec. 8, the day after the meeting, Lopez
compared Farnham and others to Nazis in
the lunatic production of Springtime for
Hitler.
On Dec. 5, Lopez wrote a tirade against
the Cape Cod Commission sayingit proves
itself to be "as useless as teats on a bull."
On Dec. 4, he referred to the town council
and airport commission as "the evil empire"
and contends that acts "perpetrated" on an
airport tenant by members of the airport
commission were "vicious, hateful, and
heinous."
On Dec. 3, Lopez dispensed with
"Capecogwatch," a new blogwagon he com-
plained had "sprung up from the dungheap"
and was attempting to "expose the truth
(sic) (veracity or accuracy) of the material"
presented on COG's site. Here's what Lopez
thinks about limitingfree speech when its
deprecation is aimed at his writings and
opinions: "I ultimately barred all comments
using the word 'cogwatch' from publica-
tion."
On Nov. 28 Lopez called councilors "ne-
farious" (extremely wicked). On Dec. 1, they
were demoted to just plain "nasty" (spite-
ful). Again on Nov. 28 he named several
airport commissioners, suggesting that
somebody "hang 'em, put 'em injail, or put
'em in the stocks."
Using personally disparaging remarks
to color statistical abundance, Lopez has
discovered a willingniche among the obvi-
ously disgruntled and the more congenial
concerned citizens who would prefer rancor-
free, constructive criticism.
Lopez has served a vital function for many
years as a persuasive and unrelenting critic
and watchdog of things municipal-to the
point of aggravation. In the pre-blog era,
there were frequent and incessant calls to
rankled reporters badgered into giving his
issues ink... because he sometimes made
sense and had facts worthy of consideration.
He thus took the lead in pointing out
the gap in school aid that shortchanged
the Cape and in signalingwhat he saw as
a local tax system that had failed resident
homeowners who were, he opined, subsi-
dizing business. A lot of people agreed and
since then there have been improvements,
depending on where one stands, on school
aid and taxes.
On Dec. 9, two days after the council
debate on the publiccomment questions,
Lopez cogged an opinion piece on develop-
ment vs. the town's ability to absorb waste-
water.The item was devoid of pejoratives
and personalities. It was a breath of fresh
air that his readers welcome. Did Farnham's
initiative navigate Lopez to higher ground
as the desert star led the way to Bethlehem?
Lopez will gain respect and listeners if
in his aging years his opinions are bereft of
denigration.
Then there was the victimized appearance
of photographer and professional colleague
Frank Paparo of Centerville, who in concilia-
tory tone rejected his characterization in an
editorial as one of several serial commenta-
tors given to rancor. He had none that night.
And finally, there was a phone call from
John Julius on Dec. 9 explaining why he
wasn't at the meeting (and people were
wondering) to express his feelings as did
Paparo, about the editorial and Farnham's
attempt to segregate public comment from
the regular agenda.
"Ijust got back from Florida,"he said.
"But I'm already preparingmy response to
the editorial."
Maybe Farnham's resolve got the point
across. The answer isn't in a different
agenda, but in changing attitudes on both
sides of the podium.
* '•
ICORNERl
School building funds
explained
I am writing in response to last
week's Barnstable Patriot article
abbut the Massachusetts School
Building Authority's regulations
and the new school building grant
program ("State funding unlikely for
school projects," Dec. 8).
In 2003, the Legislature froze the
addition of school construction
projects to the WaitingList and de-
clared a moratorium on applications
for any school until July 2007. In
2004, the Legislature eliminated the
former school building assistance
program and created the MSBA as
an independent public authority
charged with administering a new,
financially sustainable school build-
ing grant program.
Under the former program, 428
projects were maintained on a
Waiting List for funding. The MSBA
is now responsible for funding the
state's share of these projects. To
date, the MSBA has made payments
totaling $3.1 billion to approxi-
mately 360 of 428 projects on the
Waiting List. The MSBA's funding
of these WaitingList projects will
not affect the amount of grants that
the MSBA approves under the new
program or the timing of when the
MSBA makes grant payments under
the new program. The Waiting List
projects are separate from the new
program for school building con-
struction grants, and projects ap-
proved under the new program will
not "come behind" the remaining
Waiting List projects, as last week's
article suggested.
The MSBA approved regulations
in September for the new program
for school building construction
grants under which the MSBA will
award grants based on need pursu-
ant to eight statutory criteria. The
new regulations set forth a clear
process for the new grant program
and establish a framework for ap-
proval of projects based upon iden-
tifiable deficiencies within buildings,
particularly immediate health or
safety issues or severe overcrowd-
ing. The first step for a community
is to submit a Statement of Inter-
est to the MSBA, identifying the
local perspective on deficiencies in
a school facility.Selection of which
school projects qualify for funding in
the new program will be a collabora-
tive process during which the MSBA
and the local community will work
together to confirm the deficiencies
identified by the community in a
Statement of Interest and develop
a solution that makes educational
and financial sense for everyone. No
funding decisions have been made
at this time. Under the new grant
program, there will no longer be a
Waiting List.
The Needs Survey, which was re-
quired by statute, was a data collec-
tion effort to gather preliminary in-
formation on the general condition
of each school facility -information
that never before had been collect-
ed. The Authority will not make any
funding determinations based solely
on the information gathered during
the Needs Survey.
The MSBA is limited in the
amount of funding that it can
approve for school construction
projects, with a cap of $500 rnillion
in FY2008. All projects approved
for a grant under the new program
will be subject to the MSBA's new
regulations and requirements.
The MSBA will reimburse 40 to 80
percent of an approved project's
eligible costs, and reimbursement
rates will be calculated using the
formula established in the MS-
BA's statute and pursuant to the
MSBA's regulations.
The MSBA is committed to
protecting the taxpayer's dollar
by improving the school building
grant process and avoiding any
mistakes of the past in the fund-
ing and construction of school
facilities. The MSBA's regula-
tions lay out a clear and effective
process to make certain that the
Commonwealth's investment in
local school construction will
be equitable for all districts and
will be consistently applied to
ensure the short-term and long-
term financial viability of the new
program.
Katherine Craven
Executive Director
Massachusetts School Building
Authority
CONTINUED ON PAGE A:16
-LETTERS