The BarnstableBlogger has been asked several questions regarding how the Charter Commission would be elected and what the timetable would be for study. I have included several sections of the Massachusetts General Laws, available on the State's Website, that I thought might be helpful. The timetable envisioned starts with an election, as described below, in November, 2007.
CHAPTER 43B. HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Chapter 43B: Section 6. Charter commission; number of members; election
Section 6. A charter commission shall consist of nine registered voters of the city or town elected at large and by official ballot, without party or political designation, at an election held in accordance with this chapter. The names of the candidates nominated in accordance with section five shall be placed on such ballot in alphabetical order, preceded by an instruction to the effect that a voter may vote for not more than nine persons as charter commission members whether or not he favors the election of a charter commission.
The question of electing a commission to adopt or revise the charter shall be placed on such ballot in the form prescribed by the constitution.
If a majority of the votes cast upon the question of adopting or revising the charter is in the affirmative, the nine candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected.
If a majority of the votes cast upon the question is in the affirmative, the city or town clerk shall notify the director of housing and community development of such affirmative vote and said director shall notify such commission of the dates for submission of their reports and the available date or dates that such report can be placed on its ballots.
CHAPTER 43B. HOME RULE PROCEDURES
Chapter 43B: Section 9. Hearings before charter commission; reports of commission
Section 9.
(a) Within forty-five days after its election, the charter commission shall hold a public hearing.
(b) Within sixteen months after its election, the charter commission shall prepare a preliminary report including the text of the charter or charter revision which the commission intends shall be submitted to the voters and any explanatory information the commission deems desirable, shall cause such report to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, shall provide sufficient copies of the preliminary report to the city or town clerk to permit its distribution to each registered voter requesting the same, and shall furnish two copies to the attorney general and two copies to the department of housing and community development. Within four weeks after such publication, the commission shall hold one or more public hearings upon the report. Within four weeks after his receipt of the report, the attorney general shall furnish the commission with a written opinion setting forth any conflict between the proposed charter or charter revision and the constitution and laws of the commonwealth. A copy of the opinion shall at the same time be furnished to the department of housing and community development.
(c) Within eighteen months after its election, the charter commission shall submit to the city council or board of selectmen its final report, which shall include the full text and an explanation of the proposed new charter or charter revision, such comments as the commission deems desirable, an indication of the major differences between the current and proposed charters, and a statement of not more than one thousand words by the commission minority, if any, provided such statement is filed with the chairman of the commission within forty-eight hours after the commission’s vote approving such report. A copy of said final report shall also be submitted to the department of housing and community development and to the attorney general.
(d) All public hearings before a charter commission shall be held within the city or town at such time and place as may be specified in a notice published at least ten days prior to the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, but hearings may be adjourned from time to time without further published notice.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A realistic look at life and politics in the Town of Barnstable.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(82)
-
▼
May
(16)
- The Conspiracy Theories are Laughable
- Veteran's Friend: Sid Chase
- The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling.
- We needed a Vacation
- Cape Wind Debate: Process and Location are the Pro...
- The Problem With The Hate Blogs
- Non Binding Question A Good Idea
- Is Spring Finally Here?
- Can a Problem Be Solved in One Week?
- Yarmouth Taxpayer: The Solution or the Problem
- Nantucket and Cape Air must be good neighbors, too
- So You Want To Close the Airport?
- New Dogs in Town
- Barnstable Airport: Is it Time For A Change?
- The Law Regarding Charter Commissions
- And we're Fighting Because?
-
▼
May
(16)
13 comments:
Thanks BB.
We need to encourage leading citizens to come forward to run for office.
Thanks BB,
As you have shown that both a majority YES vote for a charter review AND at least 9 quality candidates are needed for a new charter commission to be formed, it is important to encourage respected community members to come forward and run. I doubt that many folks will vote 'yes' if the only candidates are deckhands on that ship of fools, the SS KOG.
I do fear that some potential candidates have been scared away from the new charter commission by the tactics of the hate blogs. Hopefully you readers will forward this site to any potential candidates...let them know that there are many Barnstable residents who are supportive of an impartial and complete review of the current governmental organization, and appropriate reform measures.
We need to keep up the positive discussions on needed reforms...let's hear it folks!
If we can turn this thing positive, I agree with Coddah that we can attract the best and the brightest to serve on the Commission.
No hard working solid citizen is going to get invloved with this if it is a food fight. To encourge the highest caliber resident, we need a different approach.
Their Shtick is old. It has lost readership because it's the same 'ol same 'ol. An old guy who hides at home and a Boston blogger who calls people names can't keep up our interest.
Anonymous at 8:21 p.m.: Why are you limiting the charter commission to "leading" citizens. Who gets to define "leading"? That's one of the great problems with this town. Why not choose from among all the citizens. Don't you think you could be a "leading" citizen? I bet you are educated and have a discerning mind. Are you incapable of selecting among all the citizens for truly democratic representative. Must you always follow the "leading" citizens. What do you define as a leading citizen; a chamber member, a politician, volunteer? It's all very cloudy.
Coddah, what's a "quality candidate"? One who thinks like you. Viva la difference.
I wish you all would truly debate the issues. You all say you want to yet .... Like, the recall. It was a democratic remedy provided for in the current town charter so why was everyone agast that the citizens should avail themselves of the remedy? Was it ethical for two councilors to act as intermediaries for the councilor under the recall? These are serious issues that need debated in this town and I hope we get a charter commission that will act like the founding fathers and hammer out a good, new charter. The commission should not be populated by the has been's who didn't get it right the first time.
We are one nation under God and one town under God that should be open to hearing all comers. Fear ends debate.
Everyone has the right to run for office and the BarnstableBlogger encourages all to consider serving our community. The same old bash Barnstable at anytime and at any cost has run out of gas. A new day is coming. Most Barnstable residents want to have pride in their community again. We're tired of the hate blogs and the personal and mean-spirted attacks. We will encourage our citizens who won't get involved now to reconsider.
BB
To Sylvia,
I promise to keep an open mind about candidates....will you?
I define a quality charter commission candidate not as someone who thinks like me, but as someone who has demonstrated the ability to think. They must be able to set aside their preconceived notions of what a new charter should consist of, and be willing to hear all the facts presented to them before making a final decision. Why vote for someone who will consider factfinding and public hearings (and speakers) as a waste of time, because they have already decided on what to do?
I also consider a quality candidate to be someone who has garnered some respect in the community...whether it was as a town official, involved citizen, or all-around good guy/gal.
Why should I pick an unknown citizen to sit on such an important board....I want to see folks who have demonstrated a commitment to something. Anyone who has spent their life in this town without getting involved is not someone I want deciding how to create an involved governement.
And since you bring up the recall, I think that citizens have the right to utilize any legal mechanism to maintain good government....however, I do object to the vindictive nature of the recent recall campaign, and the vile tactics it supporters gleefully used. A mean-spirited smear campaign is NOT good government, and those who support such tactics are anti-democratic.
Once again, let's focus on ideas, and not personalities....known or anonymous.
Well said Coddah. Let's get some people with integrity, honor and commitment to this town involved. The hate crowd is not what I had in mind.
Don't look now BB, but you just knocked one out of the box. The Bullies can give it but when you give it back, they cry like a baby.
BarnstableBlogger Rules!
We encourage all former visitors of Cape Cod Today to join us daily for our civil and considerate debate about the issues of the day. We will disagree without being disagreeable. A constructive debate is what we need. Thanks to the hundreds of visitors who have stopped by this site.
BB
Post a Comment