Ballots are ready, and Paris voters can vote on November 3rd; or they can go down to the town office and vote any time the town office is open, starting Monday October 5. Call 743-2501 to double check hours.
The issues are important, statewide as well as locally, and voting early is a very effective way to make a responsible statement. A voter can just go into the office and vote there in a place off to the side of the room, or the ballots can be taken home and mailed back, or brought back in person.
11-03-09 is a state referendum, and there are 7 items, all important, some more controversial than others. Maine Rep. Terry Hayes of Buckfield has written a good synopsis of the items. Many localities will have their own municipal items on an additional, separate ballot, as well. [See Voters Can Speak? 9-30-09 below.]
An interesting point to ponder about the local ballot this November, this on-again-off-again ballot: the ballot is to be printed in-house, and they will be hand counted. Not a huge deal, perhaps, in the realm of things?
A voter called the town office in the middle of the third week of September, to check on possible items to be on the local ballot. The items were not clearly designated at that time. However, the town clerk mentioned in the phone discussion that there needn't be a concern about a time line for the usual printed ballots that go with the voting machines that have been used in the past; because "there was no money budgeted for ballots, and anyway those voting machines are so expensive to adjust" [a discussion of the calibrating of the voting machines followed] "so we are going to print the ballots in-house and save the town some money."
A little digging showed that, actually, there had indeed been money allotted for ballots and calibrating, as well as other needs, for both the June and November elections, and those needs were approved for inclusion in the annual budget passed 6-13-09. The costs for the specific items appear in the Administrative Services budget section: "Election/Voting Machine" is listed in Administrative Detail FY 2009-10 under "Other Services/Expenses," $3700; and "Election Supplies" is there under "General Supplies," $3500. The line item for "Ballot Clerks" may be more than the $1,150 budgeted since counting ballots by hand will require more hours.
The point to ponder is this: although it is not legal to move budgeted amounts already approved by the voters from one budget category to another, i.e., the Police Department to the Fire Department or the Highway Department, it is allowed to move items around within a category, say, for instance, within the Administrative Services budget.
Unused funds from a line item in the Administrative Services budget could become a source of funds for unexpected costs incurred in another line item that now needs more money. Could that work, say, for unplanned legal expenses that could well exceed its line item? Raid the elections budget, perhaps?
Counting paper ballots will be time consuming and painstaking for the clerks, and no doubt stressful, since on this particular paper ballot is just one highly contested question: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?" The controls in the town office for giving out and receiving absentee ballots will be under close scrutiny, as will those taking ballots to nursing homes and apartment complexes.
The voters of Paris will be wishing the paper-ballot counters the very best.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Voters Can Speak?
On November 3rd there will be a ballot for issues that effect citizens in the state of Maine, possibly the Country. But, also, in spite of those who might wish it to be otherwise, there will also be a ballot with an issue for the voters in the Town of Paris.
Why would there be a party, or parties, "who might wish it to be otherwise?"
Why would there be any movement from the arena of elected officials to put up road blocks to allowing voters to have the opportunity to speak? Why would there be dragging of feet on deadlines and decisions that would try to prohibit an article from getting to a ballot so that voters could decide for themselves what they want?
Are the voters of Paris not wise enough to make choices that effect their own pocket books and life activities, and the welfare of their town?
Or, are there individuals who might fear for their jobs if the voters make the choice to vote in a certain item?
Consider what having a ballot means. It means an opportunity to vote our opinion. It means being a part of the voice that manages our town. If there is only one issue, it means that we get to weigh in on that issue and how it might be resolved in a way that will effect our lives as we live them in this town.
So, having been told, at first, that there would be no local questions on the Nov. 3 ballot for Paris voters, now it seems we have evolved to a place where we have an actual item to vote on: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?"
Having a recall ordinance on the books is not a guarantee that any elected official will be removed from office. It is simply a tool that many towns in Maine have put in place to allow voters a means to rescind an earlier vote that elected an official they may subsequently have lost confidence in. It is a re-vote, and as such, should not be taken lightly. A recall ordinance provides a procedure that must be followed carefully.
But, those who would seek to script how voters in Paris should think, need to remember that elected officials, in a municipality run by the democratic process, govern at the pleasure of the majority of the voters, the people who live there.
The recall ordinance proposed for Paris was drafted, at the request of the Paris Selectmen, 2-2009, using, as a model, an example furnished by the Maine Municipal Association. It is a model used in many municipalities in this state, some directly, some with more variations.
No matter how restrictive - or unrestrictive - the language of the final draft ordinances that went before the various municipalities of this state for vote, the intent was clear: these ordinances were to provide the opportunity for voters to un-elect officials in whom the voters had completely lost confidence.
The Town of Harpswell is on their second draft of their Recall Ordinance. The first was so restrictive that people complained they couldn't recall anyone. The second draft hasn't pleased Harpswell voters much more. The Town of Andover's recall ordinance, on the other hand, is very similar to Paris' proposed draft. Andover has tried, twice, to recall the same elected official, and has failed both times, because there have not been enough votes to recall the official.
Neither town has removed any elected official. In both towns it is the voters who are the decision makers. And that is as it should be. It is always the voters, at the polls, who ultimately make the choice about who is elected, and in the case of a recall, who ought to be un-elected.
Paris voters will have the choice of whether to put a recall ordinance in place Nov. 3. Voters need to understand that this is only a tool. This tool - the same one voters in many other Maine towns have - would give them the only means to recall an elected official; and then only if they, the voters, are truly feeling disenfranchised and betrayed.
In the best of times, once the ordinance-tool is in place, life will just go along as usual.
If it is not the best of times, however - if there are enough voters who feel disenfranchised and betrayed - then they, the dissatisfied voters, must mount a petition asking for a recall election, gather a specified number of signatures from other voters who agree, and present that petition to the selectmen.
The voters of the whole town must weigh in at this point; and the outcome decides whether the official in question has a shortened term or not.
It is, in the democratic process, the voters who get to speak. That is the way it should be; the way it must be.
Why would there be a party, or parties, "who might wish it to be otherwise?"
Why would there be any movement from the arena of elected officials to put up road blocks to allowing voters to have the opportunity to speak? Why would there be dragging of feet on deadlines and decisions that would try to prohibit an article from getting to a ballot so that voters could decide for themselves what they want?
Are the voters of Paris not wise enough to make choices that effect their own pocket books and life activities, and the welfare of their town?
Or, are there individuals who might fear for their jobs if the voters make the choice to vote in a certain item?
Consider what having a ballot means. It means an opportunity to vote our opinion. It means being a part of the voice that manages our town. If there is only one issue, it means that we get to weigh in on that issue and how it might be resolved in a way that will effect our lives as we live them in this town.
So, having been told, at first, that there would be no local questions on the Nov. 3 ballot for Paris voters, now it seems we have evolved to a place where we have an actual item to vote on: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?"
Having a recall ordinance on the books is not a guarantee that any elected official will be removed from office. It is simply a tool that many towns in Maine have put in place to allow voters a means to rescind an earlier vote that elected an official they may subsequently have lost confidence in. It is a re-vote, and as such, should not be taken lightly. A recall ordinance provides a procedure that must be followed carefully.
But, those who would seek to script how voters in Paris should think, need to remember that elected officials, in a municipality run by the democratic process, govern at the pleasure of the majority of the voters, the people who live there.
The recall ordinance proposed for Paris was drafted, at the request of the Paris Selectmen, 2-2009, using, as a model, an example furnished by the Maine Municipal Association. It is a model used in many municipalities in this state, some directly, some with more variations.
No matter how restrictive - or unrestrictive - the language of the final draft ordinances that went before the various municipalities of this state for vote, the intent was clear: these ordinances were to provide the opportunity for voters to un-elect officials in whom the voters had completely lost confidence.
The Town of Harpswell is on their second draft of their Recall Ordinance. The first was so restrictive that people complained they couldn't recall anyone. The second draft hasn't pleased Harpswell voters much more. The Town of Andover's recall ordinance, on the other hand, is very similar to Paris' proposed draft. Andover has tried, twice, to recall the same elected official, and has failed both times, because there have not been enough votes to recall the official.
Neither town has removed any elected official. In both towns it is the voters who are the decision makers. And that is as it should be. It is always the voters, at the polls, who ultimately make the choice about who is elected, and in the case of a recall, who ought to be un-elected.
Paris voters will have the choice of whether to put a recall ordinance in place Nov. 3. Voters need to understand that this is only a tool. This tool - the same one voters in many other Maine towns have - would give them the only means to recall an elected official; and then only if they, the voters, are truly feeling disenfranchised and betrayed.
In the best of times, once the ordinance-tool is in place, life will just go along as usual.
If it is not the best of times, however - if there are enough voters who feel disenfranchised and betrayed - then they, the dissatisfied voters, must mount a petition asking for a recall election, gather a specified number of signatures from other voters who agree, and present that petition to the selectmen.
The voters of the whole town must weigh in at this point; and the outcome decides whether the official in question has a shortened term or not.
It is, in the democratic process, the voters who get to speak. That is the way it should be; the way it must be.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Bottom Line
[Editor's note: A brief summary of The Town of Paris' financial situation will be prepared for the public, periodically. The information is public knowledge, but Forrie Everett, budget chairman, asks the finance clerk ahead of time, and pays for any copies himself. He will present the information at selectmen's meetings as long as he is allowed to, and his informal report will also be posted in "The Paris Reporter".]
As of 9-28-09, check book balance [for Town of Paris] is $344,395.20
Tax money for September 09 is $115,289.78. (The norm for September is $210,000.00 to $220,000.00, so tax money seems to be coming in slowly.) In October 09 we should take in over $1,000,000.00, due to escrowed accounts that will come in around the middle of the month.
The town has paid former Town Mgr. Jackson about $39,000.00 and Interim Town Mgr. Thorne $7,200.00 so far. Attorney fees from 7-01-09 to 8-31-09 were $3,275.07; $2,606.07 of that amount was paid for Jackson law suit. Total left in the account designated for legal costs is a little over $4000.00.
We still have some very large payments to make. State Revenue was down this month - only $7,173.77. This happens every now and then. If Interim Town Mgr. Thorne keeps an eye on the $$ we should make it to November tax deadline ok. If not, we will need to take out a TAN [tax anticipation note].
Submitted 9-28-09 by Forrie Everett, Ch., Town of Paris Budget Committee
As of 9-28-09, check book balance [for Town of Paris] is $344,395.20
Tax money for September 09 is $115,289.78. (The norm for September is $210,000.00 to $220,000.00, so tax money seems to be coming in slowly.) In October 09 we should take in over $1,000,000.00, due to escrowed accounts that will come in around the middle of the month.
The town has paid former Town Mgr. Jackson about $39,000.00 and Interim Town Mgr. Thorne $7,200.00 so far. Attorney fees from 7-01-09 to 8-31-09 were $3,275.07; $2,606.07 of that amount was paid for Jackson law suit. Total left in the account designated for legal costs is a little over $4000.00.
We still have some very large payments to make. State Revenue was down this month - only $7,173.77. This happens every now and then. If Interim Town Mgr. Thorne keeps an eye on the $$ we should make it to November tax deadline ok. If not, we will need to take out a TAN [tax anticipation note].
Submitted 9-28-09 by Forrie Everett, Ch., Town of Paris Budget Committee
Monday, September 28, 2009
And There Were Still 55 Who Came Again
9-28-09
"...still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris Town Office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris Fire Station..." (Town Clerk, 9-24-09)
Well, yes, it was, actually. Moved to the Fire Station, that is. 55 people turned up at the Fire Station after Chairman Ivey announced, "We will be moving to the Fire Station " - in response to Selectman Herrick's "I would think you'd want to make a decision pretty soon...." in response to people stacked up in the halls of the Town Office at 7 pm.
You actually thought we'd not show, didn't you? That we'd lose interest...Guess what?
Instant New Meeting, 7:20 pm, or so.
Selectman Herrick "I have obtained these 2 items - bills from Bernstein Shur, July-August" -legal fees $3691
[editorial note: budgeted amount for legal fees 2009-2010 = $8,000; F. Everett's presentation 9-28-09, and this site.]
Two months, and 46% used up...oh...where to dig up new resources.....
Citizens? let them eat cake.
Don't you have a law to consider in this case? I know you have little regard for the law, but...
Respect - I will have respect here - Do you want to be escorted out?
What an exercise in futility - you didn't notice the large numbers attending? Why not have meetings here in the first place?
We probably will next time .....wait - can I write that down?
I understand the only reason the subdivision ordinance is not on the ballot is because the petitioned recall ordinance would have to be on the ballot, too.
Now, I never said that. Back when we wanted to put the subdivision ordinance on the ballot, you remember.....
...a ballot...All we ask is that you give the citizens a chance to speak - this is the same thing you railed against, remember?
stony-faced silence, eyes floorward...
You will speak to the Board.
Any documents I brought you information from ...
Speak to the board.
...I have from the town office, and I paid for them.
Wrong information was presented, manager misspoke
Some CD's counted as available and can't be touched; subdivision fee money is in town report.[editorial note - F. Everett, budget chairman's full report will be posted on this site]
Bonding Rating from Standard & Poor's improvement from " bbb+" score in 2005 to A+ in 2009
a credit to former mgr. Jackson's financial management and leadership. [editorial note - a full article will be posted on this site.]
Wait. Wait, selectmen make the decisions, right? Don't make it like she gets all the credit...
Of course. But it starts at the top, doesn't it?
We have 2 recall ordinances on the books.
7-13: Policy and Procedures Committee. Tabled.
7-27: citizen petition same ordinance, demanded it be on ballot. Accepted, not voted for ballot;
But:
Policy & Procedure Committee was officially slated for the Nov. 3 ballot.
Who made that motion?
I did. Skip seconded. All five voted.
stony-faced silence...
...then, great wailing and gnashing of teeth...
I think you should do the lawful thing.
No, I think you should look at what you folks are doing. At least the ethical things you... how can you...
The law is very clear. We...
No, you look....
Mr. Ripley, let me finish... There is a procedure....
For a good 20 minutes. A gold star for perseverance, stamina, and extreme dedication in the face of serious teeth-gnashing and continuous, most-piteous wailing.
There was more, including revealing comments about decisions made that appeared to have kept the Subdivision Panel's long months of work from getting to the ballot; power plays - and playing - from the vice chairman; and several "Sit down, [citizen]" "Do you want to go home[another citizen]?" by the chair. At one time Ivey even galloped - from his chair clear to the back of the huge hall and out into the parking lot - and made the police chief come in and threaten a citizen, who, with many others, had cheered at one point, but was clearly in the sights of Mr. I all evening... actually, for many evenings....
For the most unbelievable performance that firehouse may have seen in a good while, order the DVD of this show from NPCTV, 743-7859. That cameraman is sharp; he may even have captured the police action in the back of the hall....
"...still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris Town Office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris Fire Station..." (Town Clerk, 9-24-09)
Well, yes, it was, actually. Moved to the Fire Station, that is. 55 people turned up at the Fire Station after Chairman Ivey announced, "We will be moving to the Fire Station " - in response to Selectman Herrick's "I would think you'd want to make a decision pretty soon...." in response to people stacked up in the halls of the Town Office at 7 pm.
You actually thought we'd not show, didn't you? That we'd lose interest...Guess what?
Instant New Meeting, 7:20 pm, or so.
Selectman Herrick "I have obtained these 2 items - bills from Bernstein Shur, July-August" -legal fees $3691
[editorial note: budgeted amount for legal fees 2009-2010 = $8,000; F. Everett's presentation 9-28-09, and this site.]
Two months, and 46% used up...oh...where to dig up new resources.....
Citizens? let them eat cake.
Don't you have a law to consider in this case? I know you have little regard for the law, but...
Respect - I will have respect here - Do you want to be escorted out?
What an exercise in futility - you didn't notice the large numbers attending? Why not have meetings here in the first place?
We probably will next time .....wait - can I write that down?
I understand the only reason the subdivision ordinance is not on the ballot is because the petitioned recall ordinance would have to be on the ballot, too.
Now, I never said that. Back when we wanted to put the subdivision ordinance on the ballot, you remember.....
...a ballot...All we ask is that you give the citizens a chance to speak - this is the same thing you railed against, remember?
stony-faced silence, eyes floorward...
You will speak to the Board.
Any documents I brought you information from ...
Speak to the board.
...I have from the town office, and I paid for them.
Wrong information was presented, manager misspoke
Some CD's counted as available and can't be touched; subdivision fee money is in town report.[editorial note - F. Everett, budget chairman's full report will be posted on this site]
Bonding Rating from Standard & Poor's improvement from " bbb+" score in 2005 to A+ in 2009
a credit to former mgr. Jackson's financial management and leadership. [editorial note - a full article will be posted on this site.]
Wait. Wait, selectmen make the decisions, right? Don't make it like she gets all the credit...
Of course. But it starts at the top, doesn't it?
We have 2 recall ordinances on the books.
7-13: Policy and Procedures Committee. Tabled.
7-27: citizen petition same ordinance, demanded it be on ballot. Accepted, not voted for ballot;
But:
Policy & Procedure Committee was officially slated for the Nov. 3 ballot.
Who made that motion?
I did. Skip seconded. All five voted.
stony-faced silence...
...then, great wailing and gnashing of teeth...
I think you should do the lawful thing.
No, I think you should look at what you folks are doing. At least the ethical things you... how can you...
The law is very clear. We...
No, you look....
Mr. Ripley, let me finish... There is a procedure....
For a good 20 minutes. A gold star for perseverance, stamina, and extreme dedication in the face of serious teeth-gnashing and continuous, most-piteous wailing.
There was more, including revealing comments about decisions made that appeared to have kept the Subdivision Panel's long months of work from getting to the ballot; power plays - and playing - from the vice chairman; and several "Sit down, [citizen]" "Do you want to go home[another citizen]?" by the chair. At one time Ivey even galloped - from his chair clear to the back of the huge hall and out into the parking lot - and made the police chief come in and threaten a citizen, who, with many others, had cheered at one point, but was clearly in the sights of Mr. I all evening... actually, for many evenings....
For the most unbelievable performance that firehouse may have seen in a good while, order the DVD of this show from NPCTV, 743-7859. That cameraman is sharp; he may even have captured the police action in the back of the hall....
Thursday, September 24, 2009
It's Over Here...No, Wait....
Paris Selectmen will meet Monday 9-28-09, 7 PM. Somewhere. Call the town office to be sure. 743-2501. Same old drill...
Fire Chief Frost, responding to a voter's phone call, said he was asked by the town clerk if the fire station was available Monday night, and he said, "I told her it was." In response to a call to the town office, a voter was told by the town clerk Tuesday that the meeting is "still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris town office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris fire station and that room has been reserved."
Why not just have it at the fire station and be done with it?
More and more voters are concerned, and are watching more closely. Seems like there must be something to hide if voters keep not being accommodated; not given a chance to see how the town's business is being run. It makes one ask, "Why do the selectmen keep trying to discourage people from coming to see what they're doing?"
Fire Chief Frost, responding to a voter's phone call, said he was asked by the town clerk if the fire station was available Monday night, and he said, "I told her it was." In response to a call to the town office, a voter was told by the town clerk Tuesday that the meeting is "still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris town office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris fire station and that room has been reserved."
Why not just have it at the fire station and be done with it?
More and more voters are concerned, and are watching more closely. Seems like there must be something to hide if voters keep not being accommodated; not given a chance to see how the town's business is being run. It makes one ask, "Why do the selectmen keep trying to discourage people from coming to see what they're doing?"
Really? No Ballot At All?
Thursday morning, 9-24-09, a citizen went into the town office to ask what would be on the local ballot along with the state referendum Nov. 3. The response was that there would be no questions at all on the ballot.
No questions at all, because everyone missed the deadline. Seems everyone ignored the 45-day rule.
Really. Really?
Or did someone drop...hide... the ball? For a referendum vote, information must be submitted and approved, and on track, hearings scheduled, t's crossed and i's dotted, 45 days before the date in question. In this case, that would have been September 19 for a November 3 referendum vote.
This scheduling and planning ahead and arranging of details falls under the job description of the registrar of voters, i.e., the town clerk, overseen by the town manager. Various well-informed individuals are also likely to be privy to that kind of scheduling information.
It is difficult to imagine that, in a town like Paris, key people involved in municipal government matters and items of critical interest to the voters would not have educated themselves on such deadlines and criteria. Although being privy to that information and doing something with it are two separate items....
Consider an individual, who not only sits on a special committee to rework sections of Paris' subdivision ordinance, and on the board of selectmen, but who has been party to privileged, exclusive conversations with Interim Manager Thorne and Town Atty. Hole. One finds it hard to believe this individual could be unaware of these deadlines and requirements.
So, there are inevitable questions.
How does it happen that, mysteriously, there is not even one of the following 3 items on any ballot for Paris voters to consider on the November 3 State Referendum day?
(1) "Ordinance for Recall Election for the Town of Paris", requested by Paris Board of Selectmen 2/19/ 09 , voted to be put on the Nov. 3 ballot [Minutes 7-27-09, item 7], a public hearing to be held 8-24-09 (which indeed did happen);
(2) "Shall the Town Vote to Enact an Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris Maine?" , a petition filed by 354 Paris voters when the above ordinance was tabled the first time it came before the board of selectmen. The petition was certified by the town clerk prior to being presented to, and accepted by, all 5 selectmen [Minutes 7-27-09, item 6]. The petition was drawn on 30-A M.R.S.A. 2528(5);
(3) "Shall an Ordinance Entitled 'Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Paris, Maine' be Amended?" , committee work submitted 9-16-09. Charged with rewriting certain portions of the 2009 subdivision ordinance, 6 individuals who made up an independent "Subdivision Panel" met regularly over at least 3 months to rework some of the flaws in the newly passed ordinance.
One could ponder the question:
Was there anything on the short list above that someone(s) might have preferred to not have on a ballot before the voters?
No questions at all, because everyone missed the deadline. Seems everyone ignored the 45-day rule.
Really. Really?
Or did someone drop...hide... the ball? For a referendum vote, information must be submitted and approved, and on track, hearings scheduled, t's crossed and i's dotted, 45 days before the date in question. In this case, that would have been September 19 for a November 3 referendum vote.
This scheduling and planning ahead and arranging of details falls under the job description of the registrar of voters, i.e., the town clerk, overseen by the town manager. Various well-informed individuals are also likely to be privy to that kind of scheduling information.
It is difficult to imagine that, in a town like Paris, key people involved in municipal government matters and items of critical interest to the voters would not have educated themselves on such deadlines and criteria. Although being privy to that information and doing something with it are two separate items....
Consider an individual, who not only sits on a special committee to rework sections of Paris' subdivision ordinance, and on the board of selectmen, but who has been party to privileged, exclusive conversations with Interim Manager Thorne and Town Atty. Hole. One finds it hard to believe this individual could be unaware of these deadlines and requirements.
So, there are inevitable questions.
How does it happen that, mysteriously, there is not even one of the following 3 items on any ballot for Paris voters to consider on the November 3 State Referendum day?
(1) "Ordinance for Recall Election for the Town of Paris", requested by Paris Board of Selectmen 2/19/ 09 , voted to be put on the Nov. 3 ballot [Minutes 7-27-09, item 7], a public hearing to be held 8-24-09 (which indeed did happen);
(2) "Shall the Town Vote to Enact an Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris Maine?" , a petition filed by 354 Paris voters when the above ordinance was tabled the first time it came before the board of selectmen. The petition was certified by the town clerk prior to being presented to, and accepted by, all 5 selectmen [Minutes 7-27-09, item 6]. The petition was drawn on 30-A M.R.S.A. 2528(5);
(3) "Shall an Ordinance Entitled 'Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Paris, Maine' be Amended?" , committee work submitted 9-16-09. Charged with rewriting certain portions of the 2009 subdivision ordinance, 6 individuals who made up an independent "Subdivision Panel" met regularly over at least 3 months to rework some of the flaws in the newly passed ordinance.
One could ponder the question:
Was there anything on the short list above that someone(s) might have preferred to not have on a ballot before the voters?
Not So
To Whom It May Concern in the ballot department over there in the Town Office:
*Not possible for any questions to be put before the voters on a referendum ballot Nov. 3?
*because no questions were filed the required 45 days before Nov. 3rd (making that date Sep. 19th);
Not So. On two counts.
Maine Municipal Association, Town Meeting and Election Manual, Chapter 4, "Referendum Questions," pp. 62-63;
"...orders of the municipal officers for referendum elections be filed with the clerk at least 45 days before the elections can be held. Therefore, if the municipal officers on their own initiative decide to order a matter to a referendum vote, they should make that decision at a properly noticed meeting, on a motion with a second and a vote, and write out an order and sign it and deliver it to the clerk. (Alternatively, if minutes of their meetings are kept...and if the motion as recorded provides sufficient information, that record can be regarded as an 'order.' ")
On Monday, 7-27-09, the following item was listed in the Selectmen's Minutes, signed, Michael Thorne:
#7. "Discussion and action on an 'Ordinance for a Recall Election for the Town of Paris'.(This item was tabled from meeting of 7-13-09.) Motion to put the 'Ordinance for Recall Election' on the November 3rd election and to hold a public hearing at the Fire Station on August 24th @ 6:30, was made by R. Glover, seconded by L. Herrick, all five (5) voted in favor."
The ballot has to be ready 30 days before the vote for absentee voters. A Paris voter was recently told by the Town Clerk that ballots were going to be "printed in-house" to save the town some money. That would make the ballot-ready-day Friday, October 2. Somebody better get crackin'. Paris voters have a referendum issue to consider.
*Not possible for any questions to be put before the voters on a referendum ballot Nov. 3?
*because no questions were filed the required 45 days before Nov. 3rd (making that date Sep. 19th);
Not So. On two counts.
Maine Municipal Association, Town Meeting and Election Manual, Chapter 4, "Referendum Questions," pp. 62-63;
"...orders of the municipal officers for referendum elections be filed with the clerk at least 45 days before the elections can be held. Therefore, if the municipal officers on their own initiative decide to order a matter to a referendum vote, they should make that decision at a properly noticed meeting, on a motion with a second and a vote, and write out an order and sign it and deliver it to the clerk. (Alternatively, if minutes of their meetings are kept...and if the motion as recorded provides sufficient information, that record can be regarded as an 'order.' ")
On Monday, 7-27-09, the following item was listed in the Selectmen's Minutes, signed, Michael Thorne:
#7. "Discussion and action on an 'Ordinance for a Recall Election for the Town of Paris'.(This item was tabled from meeting of 7-13-09.) Motion to put the 'Ordinance for Recall Election' on the November 3rd election and to hold a public hearing at the Fire Station on August 24th @ 6:30, was made by R. Glover, seconded by L. Herrick, all five (5) voted in favor."
The ballot has to be ready 30 days before the vote for absentee voters. A Paris voter was recently told by the Town Clerk that ballots were going to be "printed in-house" to save the town some money. That would make the ballot-ready-day Friday, October 2. Somebody better get crackin'. Paris voters have a referendum issue to consider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)