Special Article 16 - Penalties for consuming marijuana in public

Article 16 created a local penalty for the public consumption of marijuana (and marijuana derivatives).

When the possession of small amounts (less than 1 ounce) of marijuana was decriminalized, it did not make the illegal drug legal. It simply made the possession of small amounts a civil instead of a criminal infraction.

However, the law left a little to be desired. For example, marijuana is still an illegal drug, but there is no serious deterrent to possessing and/or using small amounts. The local bylaw created a $300 local fine in addition to the state's $100 fine.

It also focused on the use of marijuana in public. As Chief Riello noted during town meeting, someone can be arrested for drinking a beer in public, but they can't be arrested for smoking marijuana in public. Hence this proposed local bylaw.

Unfortunately, most of town meeting favored an amendment which removed the language of a "criminal indictment." While this language was unlikely to pass muster with the state (only the state can create criminal statutes), it would have sent a message that we need to tighten these loopholes. I voted "no" against this amendment, but it passed.

I voted "aye" for the article; it passed.

All that said; I have to share something that few folks at home could see.

Near the front of the Lawrence School Auditorium sat four school committee members, Chairman Jamie MacDonald, Terri Medeiros, Susan Augusta and Rebecca Moffit. As individuals, these four persons have every right to vote how they wish. However, as town meeting representatives and school committee members, they have an obligation to explain their votes to the public they were elected to represent.

What were their votes?

All four voted against Article 16.

How can these four individuals, who are tasked with overseeing the education of our children, justify voting against an article which would help discourage drug use?

Do they think it is acceptable to use marijuana in public places such as our schools?

If not, what policies have they implemented that are more strict than a $300 fine?

These votes were even more appalling in light of a recent substance abuse survey (the results of which happened to be published in the Friday, April 10, 2009 Falmouth Enterprise; the very same paper which covered this issue and other town meeting votes in detail) which found that marijuana is the second most abused drug amongst teens in Falmouth.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Special Article 9 - Waquoit Congregational Church

Believe it or not, there are some times when I haven't yet made up my mind about an article by the time town meeting begins. Article 9 on the Special Town Meeting warrant - to appropriate $190,000 from the Community Preservation Act for the historic restoration of the Waquoit Congregational Church - was one such article.

There was a considerable amount of debate which centered on the relationship between church and state. Falmouth Town Counsel Frank Duffy noted that there is a provision in the Massachusetts constitution, the "Anti-Aid Amendment," which prohibits the use of public funds to advance the cause of a religion. Restoring a church is apparently acceptable (there are more than 70 similar projects across Massachusetts), but some folks suggested that giving money to a church frees other funds to evangelize, creating an indirect church-state conflict. Of course, this assumes that the recipient of the funds has other money for evangelizing.

For my part, I was convinced to vote in favor of this project for a number of reasons:

1) Last fall, I argued against giving $20,000 in CPA funds for the restoration of an ice house at Highfield Hall. Not only did this violate the promise (again) that no public money would be used for this project, but Historic Highfield is a well organized non-profit that has proved to be rather adept at raising money.

On the other hand, I don't even think the Waquoit Congregational Church has a web page. It is a small church with a correspondingly small congregation - a very small base from which it must raise the funds necessary for restoration.

2) Historic Highfield requested just $20,000, an amount which they could easily raise. On the other hand, the Waquoit project is considerably larger - any organization would struggle to raise $190,000.

3) There is a significant public benefit. The church is not unlike the churches of old, which were used as public meetinghouses when religious services were not in session. Currently, it is used for Precinct 7 meetings and voting.

4) Finally, there is the issue of the Community Preservation Act itself, which requires that at least 10 percent of the funds be spent on historic preservation. Historic preservation projects are few and far between unlike open space acquisitions, of which we seem to have no shortage. If the Waquoit Congregational Church didn't get this money, we would have to bank it for some other project.

And so I voted "aye"; it passed.

Article 18 - Upsetting the apple cart, Part I

The budget for Fiscal Year 2010 (which begins on July 1, 2009) was Article 18. At the conclusion of Town Manager Robert Whritenour's budget presentation, I asked a couple of questions:

Q) On the slide showing the public service budgets, you said Police was up $115,000, but the slide showed a minus; could you clarify that?
A) It is up $115,000

Q) On the subject of layoffs; How many layoffs have there been, if any, in what departments, and what is the effect on services?
A) There has been one reduction in the number of inspectors due to a the slowdown in the building industry; there is a lack of work.

The questions had come to mind while listening to the presentation, and I didn't give a second thought to asking them. However, after the meeting adjourned for the evening, I was approached by someone who expressed concern about my questions; that I had blind-sided Mr. Whritenour; that I should have asked them privately and not in public.

Some folks seem to think that I have some sort of sinister side to me, and I've been accused of playing politics on several occasions.

In fact, I don't set out to blind-side people; I just ask questions or present information when the opportunity allows. If someone isn't prepared, I can see how they might feel blind sided, but the solution is not for me to keep my mouth shut. It is for them to be prepared.

Special Article 32 - Webster Woods, Act III

This is the first of several posts about the Spring 2009 Town Meetings that - because of the subject matter - deserves a post of its own.

It was the third time in two years that the proposal to build affordable housing at 419 Woods Hole Road - a.k.a. Webster Woods - has been on the town meeting warrant. The first time, last spring, town meeting voted indefinite postponement based on the promise of an alternative.

The second time, last fall, members of the Affordable Housing Committee took action when the selectmen didn't and made a very powerful presentation. Unfortunately, the article also included a conservation restriction, which required a 2/3rds vote. Although a majority voted in favor of the plan, there wasn't 2/3rds, so it failed.

This time, Teaticket resident Marc Finneran put an article on the warrant - without a conservation restriction - and asked for my assistance with the presentation.

Only a handful of individuals got to speak before the question was called, and two - Precinct 6 Representative Mike Duffany and Selectman Kevin Murphy - spoke against the article. Mr. Duffany noted that Falmouth may have a lot of affordable housing that hasn't been counted. He is correct - I've actually spoken with landlords who rent their properties at what would be considered affordable rates.

Selectman Murphy stated that we'll never get to the state required 10 percent. He, too, is probably correct, given that market rate housing is also being built, which keeps pushing the magic number (of units needed) further and further out.

Unfortunately, both arguments are irrelevant to Webster Woods and affordable housing in general.

The Affordable Housing Development Plan was approved by the selectmen and Planning Board last fall. In it, Falmouth has committed to creating 72 units of affordable housing each year for the next five years. If we can accomplish this goal, the state will allow us more control over where and how 40B developments are built.

Those 72 units per year equal 1/2 of 1 percent - a total of 2.5 percent. So, contrary to what Selectman Murphy implied, we are not trying to reach 10 percent, but rather a small fraction of that.

And while there may be uncounted numbers of affordable housing units in Falmouth, the fact is that it doesn't matter. The state only considers deed restricted properties to be affordable, so even if every property in Falmouth was sold or rented at an affordable rate, if it's not in the deed, it doesn't count.

In the end, the article failed. Absent a poll of every town meeting representative who voted no, there may be no way of knowing why, but I hope that these misleading facts didn't play a part.

Precinct Meetings

It's that time of year again, when the daffodils start to bloom, the peepers call for mates and town meeting representatives gather for precinct meetings.

If you're not a town meeting representative, you can still attend your precinct meeting (or any precinct meeting, if you can't make yours). It gives you an opportunity to meet and influence those people who represent you in town government. It's Democracy at its best!

Precincts 1 & 2: Thursday April 2nd 7:00pm at the Town Hall Civil Defense Room

Precinct 3: Thursday, March 26th 7:00 PM at the Great Harbors Clubhouse

Precinct 4: Wednesday, April 1st 7:00pm at the East Falmouth Elementary School

Precincts 5 & 6: Thursday April 2nd 7:00pm at the West Falmouth Library

Precinct 7: Thursday, March 26th 7:00pm at the Waquoit Congregational Meeting Hall

Precincts 8 & 9: Wednesday, March 25th 7:00pm at the Barnstable County Fair Grounds Administration Building