The Cape Cod Times ran an article today, "Political candidates have spotty voting records." which stated, "Brent Putnam voted 21 times since 1996, missing a host of elections including the state and presidential primaries in 2004."
I've asked Mr. Brennan for this information so I can review and comment on it.
That said; it's worth noting that I'm the ONLY member of town meeting to voluntarily post my voting record. I started this practice with the spring 2007 town meeting, continued it with fall 2007 town meeting and I'll be posting my votes for this spring's town meeting too.
Showing posts with label Town Meeting Fall 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Town Meeting Fall 2007. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Friday, November 23, 2007
How did your town meeting representative vote?
Open, accountable government is a vital part of a thriving democracy. Why, then, is it so hard to find out how your town meeting representative voted? Short of calling all 27 of your representatives, how do you know their votes?
While some town meeting members take their role seriously, there are many who do a miserable job of communicating with the people who elected them. For example, I've lived in precincts 4, 7 and 9. It took more than 15 years before any town meeting member ever called on me - in person, over the phone, etc. - to find out what I thought about various town issues. How can these people claim to represent me if they have no idea what I think?
This is one of the reasons why I ran for selectman. Indeed, when I was going door to door during the campaign earlier this year, a number of folks said the very same thing. In ten or twenty years - in some cases for their entire life here - no one running or holding public office had ever bothered to knock on their door and ask for their opinion. I was the first.
To that end, I've reposted my fall town meeting votes - just scroll down or click here - so they would be easier for you to find. If you live in precinct 9, you only need only call 26 other people now. If you live elsewhere in Falmouth, you might consider electing new town meeting representatives.
While some town meeting members take their role seriously, there are many who do a miserable job of communicating with the people who elected them. For example, I've lived in precincts 4, 7 and 9. It took more than 15 years before any town meeting member ever called on me - in person, over the phone, etc. - to find out what I thought about various town issues. How can these people claim to represent me if they have no idea what I think?
This is one of the reasons why I ran for selectman. Indeed, when I was going door to door during the campaign earlier this year, a number of folks said the very same thing. In ten or twenty years - in some cases for their entire life here - no one running or holding public office had ever bothered to knock on their door and ask for their opinion. I was the first.
To that end, I've reposted my fall town meeting votes - just scroll down or click here - so they would be easier for you to find. If you live in precinct 9, you only need only call 26 other people now. If you live elsewhere in Falmouth, you might consider electing new town meeting representatives.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Spin
If you've not already noticed, this blog hosts Falmouth-related news items from other sources. We don't chose these items, rather they are randomly selected by Google for us.
So, it was a bit of a surprise to see a press release by the Campaign to Improve Assisted Living/SEIU which stated that "Representatives of the Campaign to Improve Assisted Living and SEIU Healthcare joined Falmouth Town Meeting members who opposed the expansion."
I did?
In fact, town meeting never got to vote on the article specific to Atria (#5) which was effectively withdrawn because Article 4, which would have increased the density in Senior Care Retirement Districts, failed. More importantly, Article 4 failed only because it didn't get the necessary 2/3rd majority needed for zoning articles. In fact, a clear majority of town meeting members voted in favor of it, just not 2/3rd.
What the SEIU has done is to spin the truth, and frankly, if they want my support, this is not the way to go about it.
Even more appalling was the quote, “We know we need senior housing,” said Town Meeting member Peter Waasdorp. “But we need housing that our town residents can afford. With Atria charging up to $90,000 a year, their services are out of reach for all but the wealthiest members of our town. At the same time, Atria pay its workers wages that make it really hard to live in Falmouth. We voted this down because we need our zoning to match the needs of our town, not the needs of Atria.”
Mr. Waasdorp never asked me about how I voted and why, so I'd like to know...How can he presume to speak for me?
(Note that I did post how I voted, but that was after the SEIU press release was released.)
So, it was a bit of a surprise to see a press release by the Campaign to Improve Assisted Living/SEIU which stated that "Representatives of the Campaign to Improve Assisted Living and SEIU Healthcare joined Falmouth Town Meeting members who opposed the expansion."
I did?
In fact, town meeting never got to vote on the article specific to Atria (#5) which was effectively withdrawn because Article 4, which would have increased the density in Senior Care Retirement Districts, failed. More importantly, Article 4 failed only because it didn't get the necessary 2/3rd majority needed for zoning articles. In fact, a clear majority of town meeting members voted in favor of it, just not 2/3rd.
What the SEIU has done is to spin the truth, and frankly, if they want my support, this is not the way to go about it.
Even more appalling was the quote, “We know we need senior housing,” said Town Meeting member Peter Waasdorp. “But we need housing that our town residents can afford. With Atria charging up to $90,000 a year, their services are out of reach for all but the wealthiest members of our town. At the same time, Atria pay its workers wages that make it really hard to live in Falmouth. We voted this down because we need our zoning to match the needs of our town, not the needs of Atria.”
Mr. Waasdorp never asked me about how I voted and why, so I'd like to know...How can he presume to speak for me?
(Note that I did post how I voted, but that was after the SEIU press release was released.)
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Skewed Priorities, Part I
Kudos to Selectman Ahmed Mustafa for fighting for, and winning, a full-time employee for the veteran services office, and shame on the rest of the board of selectmen for their obvious lack of support for Selectman Mustafa, especially Chairman Kevin Murphy.
Instead of supporting the $11,000 staffing expenditure — which is necessary for Falmouth to get reimbursements from the state — Chairman Murphy pushed a $30,000 expenditure for a camera system that, if we just wait two years, we could get free from Comcast.
Whatever happened to prioritizing our spending?
(This post also appeared as a letter entitled, "Approves Mr. Mustafa’s Stance," in the Friday, November 16, 2007 issue of the Falmouth Enterprise.)
Instead of supporting the $11,000 staffing expenditure — which is necessary for Falmouth to get reimbursements from the state — Chairman Murphy pushed a $30,000 expenditure for a camera system that, if we just wait two years, we could get free from Comcast.
Whatever happened to prioritizing our spending?
(This post also appeared as a letter entitled, "Approves Mr. Mustafa’s Stance," in the Friday, November 16, 2007 issue of the Falmouth Enterprise.)
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Town Meeting is Wrong Forum for Article 42
Four years ago, some folks sponsored an article in town meeting which, according to its title, was intended to, "...Defend The Constitution of The United States." However, it was the article itself which threatened our constitution.
Our founding fathers understood that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep one person from holding all the cards, so our constitution enshrines the principle of separation of power. For example, all government spending must originate in the House of Representatives, and those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.
Had that article - a protest against the USA PATRIOT Act - passed, Falmouth would have usurped the authority of the federal courts - the only branch of government with the authority to decide the constitutionality of our laws. Fortunately, a majority of town meeting members recognized that fact and the article failed.
Now a group of people are again challenging our federal government in town meeting. Article 42 on the fall warrant, which requests that, "Congress set goals to end the occupation of Iraq," is not as openly defiant as that article about the USA PATRIOT Act, but the same principle is involved. The proponents are unhappy with Congress, so they're going to town meeting.
Back in 1776 when we were ruled by a king and had no representation in Parliament, petitions started in taverns and churches were the only way we could protest the latest infringement of our rights. However, we're not ruled by a king anymore. We have a variety of ways to redress grievances against our government today. If these folks haven't protested in front of Representative Delahunt's office every Saturday for the past year, or gathered signatures for a petition to Senator Kerry, they might consider these options.
Moreover, articles such as these put us on a slippery slope. Four years ago it was the USA PATRIOT Act, now it's the Iraq war. Town meeting has no authority to either fund the war or command the troops, yet this article will force us to debate this issue in town meeting. We may as well be debating illegal immigration. What's next? An article about mine safety?
While the proponents of Article 42 may mean well, town meeting is the wrong forum. This article adopts a revolutionary stance toward Congress and takes another swipe at the principles upon which our nation was founded.
(This post also appeared as guest commentary in the Thursday, November 1, 2007, issue of the Falmouth Bulletin.)
Our founding fathers understood that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep one person from holding all the cards, so our constitution enshrines the principle of separation of power. For example, all government spending must originate in the House of Representatives, and those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.
Had that article - a protest against the USA PATRIOT Act - passed, Falmouth would have usurped the authority of the federal courts - the only branch of government with the authority to decide the constitutionality of our laws. Fortunately, a majority of town meeting members recognized that fact and the article failed.
Now a group of people are again challenging our federal government in town meeting. Article 42 on the fall warrant, which requests that, "Congress set goals to end the occupation of Iraq," is not as openly defiant as that article about the USA PATRIOT Act, but the same principle is involved. The proponents are unhappy with Congress, so they're going to town meeting.
Back in 1776 when we were ruled by a king and had no representation in Parliament, petitions started in taverns and churches were the only way we could protest the latest infringement of our rights. However, we're not ruled by a king anymore. We have a variety of ways to redress grievances against our government today. If these folks haven't protested in front of Representative Delahunt's office every Saturday for the past year, or gathered signatures for a petition to Senator Kerry, they might consider these options.
Moreover, articles such as these put us on a slippery slope. Four years ago it was the USA PATRIOT Act, now it's the Iraq war. Town meeting has no authority to either fund the war or command the troops, yet this article will force us to debate this issue in town meeting. We may as well be debating illegal immigration. What's next? An article about mine safety?
While the proponents of Article 42 may mean well, town meeting is the wrong forum. This article adopts a revolutionary stance toward Congress and takes another swipe at the principles upon which our nation was founded.
(This post also appeared as guest commentary in the Thursday, November 1, 2007, issue of the Falmouth Bulletin.)
Friday, October 26, 2007
Precinct Meetings
Even if you're not a town meeting member, you should take some time to attend your precinct meeting. Not only do you have the opportunity to meet and influence those people who represent you in town government, but you may even get some free food.
Precincts 1 & 2: Wednesday, November 7th 7:00pm at the Morse Pond School Library
Precinct 3: Wednesday, November 7th 7:00pm at the Great Harbors Association's Club House
Precinct 4: Wednesday, November 7th 7:00pm at the East Falmouth Elementary School. Organizational meeting at 6:30
Precincts 5 & 6: Thursday, November 8th 7:00pm at the West Falmouth Library
Precinct 7: Thursday, November 8th 7:00pm at the Waquoit Congregational Church Meeting Hall
Precincts 8 & 9: Tuesday, November 6th 7:00pm at the New Alchemy Common House
Precincts 1 & 2: Wednesday, November 7th 7:00pm at the Morse Pond School Library
Precinct 3: Wednesday, November 7th 7:00pm at the Great Harbors Association's Club House
Precinct 4: Wednesday, November 7th 7:00pm at the East Falmouth Elementary School. Organizational meeting at 6:30
Precincts 5 & 6: Thursday, November 8th 7:00pm at the West Falmouth Library
Precinct 7: Thursday, November 8th 7:00pm at the Waquoit Congregational Church Meeting Hall
Precincts 8 & 9: Tuesday, November 6th 7:00pm at the New Alchemy Common House
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)