The Boston Globe editorial, Ending the Darfur Silence, this Sunday morning focused on the genocide in the Darfur section of Sudan. While forceful in its argument that this is an international humanitarian disaster, it is hypocritical and almost weasily in the way it skirts the main solution to the problem.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/04/30/ending_the_darfur_silence/
The editorial describes the main perpetrators of this atrocity as the National Islamic Front and their main military wing known as the Janjaweed Arab militia. It bemoans the fact that over 400,000 people have been murdered and another 2 million people have been displaced from their homes.
The piece mentions a rally of private citizens converging on Washington D.C. at which human rights activists and scholars will meet at the Holocaust museum to watch a film on Darfur. It goes on to say that the "spirit of the rally is captured in a quote from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "In the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Well with all due respect to the Rev. King and to the Globe editorial staff, talk is cheap. Talk and film watching will do nothing to solve this problem. It is action that is required in the Sudan to end this tragedy. That action would involved military intervention to stop the genocide and the placement of U.N. peace keeping forces in the region to keep it from re-occurring.
Inevitably the bulk of the manpower and expense of such an action would likely be born by the United States. This would be just the type of injection of American military might that the Globe and the leftists at the parent New York Times so frequently rails against.
The Globe laments the lack of action by the Bush administration and others and criticizes them for making convenient excuses, yet they cannot bring themselves to print the words or propose that direct, forceful and decisive action be taken to stop the murder. The brilliant strategists at the Globe suggest that moral and political pressure must be brought to bear on world governments.
World governments are not committing this genocide. Pressure and talk will not bring the parties to a negotiated peace. Overwhelming force and punishment against the main aggressor is the only tried and true method that will stop this behavior.
If the Globe is concerned about stopping genocide then the editorial brain trust at the paper should have the guts to call for a realistic solution. A decent news story might report how many troops are involved in this aggression and how much time, effort and military resources would need to be marshaled by the U.N and the United States to end this tragedy. The Globe never seems to be at a loss to find experts to criticize Rumsfeld's war making ability, perhaps they could find one to advise him on Darfur. Some how I don't see that story making the front page.
AmericanThinker.com 4/30/06
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5456
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Virtuosity
Virtuosity by definition is a great technical skill (as in the practice of a fine art). It is a word that just doesn't seem to do justice to a performance or exhibition when you witness it yourself. It is not something you can describe in words. It is more a less a feeling of knowing that this is something very special.
Fortunately for all of us in this country we have both the numbers of incredibly talented people and we have the means by which this talent can be brought to all of us via the various media outlets. The internet has now provided an explosion in an even more personal way in which these things can be experienced in the comfort of our own family room or office or kitchen or where ever in the house the computer sits.
We have all interests outside of our jobs and in some way we are inspired in those interests by viewing the the greats who have come before us. The popularity of the particular endeavor is what makes a highly skilled person more commonly known throughout our land.
Whether something is popular or not does not diminish our appreciation when we witness something that is truly amazing. I had just such an experience lately when I watched a video of Chris Bliss performing a juggling routine at the end of one of his theater performances. I can't name any great jugglers in history but I can't imagine many could have topped this.
I have attached the link for your viewing pleasure. Sit back and enjoy. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4776181634656145640
Fortunately for all of us in this country we have both the numbers of incredibly talented people and we have the means by which this talent can be brought to all of us via the various media outlets. The internet has now provided an explosion in an even more personal way in which these things can be experienced in the comfort of our own family room or office or kitchen or where ever in the house the computer sits.
We have all interests outside of our jobs and in some way we are inspired in those interests by viewing the the greats who have come before us. The popularity of the particular endeavor is what makes a highly skilled person more commonly known throughout our land.
Whether something is popular or not does not diminish our appreciation when we witness something that is truly amazing. I had just such an experience lately when I watched a video of Chris Bliss performing a juggling routine at the end of one of his theater performances. I can't name any great jugglers in history but I can't imagine many could have topped this.
I have attached the link for your viewing pleasure. Sit back and enjoy. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4776181634656145640
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Sooner or later?
The June light oil contract reached a new high of $75.35 in New York Friday. This development guarantees that the peak summer vacation driving season will be done under the cloud of gasoline prices in excess of $3.00 per gallon. Some of those reasons are out of our control and some are of our own making.
Certainly the decision to phase out the additive MBTE and replace it with ethanol has contributed to the shortages that have been experienced on the East Coast. Why that can't done on a slower schedule remains a mystery.
There are a number of things out of our control including insurgent attacks that are restricting increases in Iraqi production as well as continued unrest in Nigeria that threatens to lower output from the world's fifth largest producer.
The single biggest reason for volatility and potential complete upheaval in world oil prices is Iran's nuclear ambitions. Say what you want about Iran's little fanatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but from a business standpoint he seems crazy as a fox.
The April 11 announcement by Iran that they had succeeded in enriching uranium upped the ante significantly in Ahmadinejad's confrontation with the West. The benefits to Iran in the Islamic world can't be fully appreciated in the United States. Coincidental to his uranium announcement was the statement that "the United States can't do a damn thing about it". Confronting the U.S. on this issue while simultaneously causing a huge increase in the Islamic world's primary export product raises his stature on a daily basis.
Islamic pride is another factor as there are a number of articles in the Middle Eastern press touting the technological advancements being made by the Iranians.
The ticking time bomb in this whole affair is the real plans of the Iranians towards Israel. Every time Ahmadinejad utters a threat to wipe Israel off the map he has the dual benefit of his stature rising with the Islamic militants as well as his oil income rising with the fear of open warfare and the subsequent reduced oil production as a result.
The question is whether or not he is walking a fine line of diplomatic chicken or is he and the Iranian mullahs bent on direct confrontation? The United States can afford to wait it out for a variety of reasons. Ahmadinejad is right that we can't do a damn thing about it at the moment. The Russians and Chinese are dead set against any attack by the US on Iran. With Iran's increasing oil wealth there are many military and civilian contracts to be given and the Russians have been the recipient of a lot of hard capital from the those deals over the years. The political climate in the US is another reason that a US led attack is unlikely.
The Israelis however are another matter entirely. The Iranians already possess significant missile capability. That capability coupled with a nuclear weapon in the hands of a religious fanatic is something that the Israelis cannot tolerate.
There is some disagreement in the western press as to how close Iran is to actually producing weapons grade materials. Make no mistake about the fact that the Israelis know just how close Iran is to building a bomb. When that is about to happen the Israelis will act to eliminate this threat. They are faced with very little choice. The only question is will it happen sooner or later?
Certainly the decision to phase out the additive MBTE and replace it with ethanol has contributed to the shortages that have been experienced on the East Coast. Why that can't done on a slower schedule remains a mystery.
There are a number of things out of our control including insurgent attacks that are restricting increases in Iraqi production as well as continued unrest in Nigeria that threatens to lower output from the world's fifth largest producer.
The single biggest reason for volatility and potential complete upheaval in world oil prices is Iran's nuclear ambitions. Say what you want about Iran's little fanatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but from a business standpoint he seems crazy as a fox.
The April 11 announcement by Iran that they had succeeded in enriching uranium upped the ante significantly in Ahmadinejad's confrontation with the West. The benefits to Iran in the Islamic world can't be fully appreciated in the United States. Coincidental to his uranium announcement was the statement that "the United States can't do a damn thing about it". Confronting the U.S. on this issue while simultaneously causing a huge increase in the Islamic world's primary export product raises his stature on a daily basis.
Islamic pride is another factor as there are a number of articles in the Middle Eastern press touting the technological advancements being made by the Iranians.
The ticking time bomb in this whole affair is the real plans of the Iranians towards Israel. Every time Ahmadinejad utters a threat to wipe Israel off the map he has the dual benefit of his stature rising with the Islamic militants as well as his oil income rising with the fear of open warfare and the subsequent reduced oil production as a result.
The question is whether or not he is walking a fine line of diplomatic chicken or is he and the Iranian mullahs bent on direct confrontation? The United States can afford to wait it out for a variety of reasons. Ahmadinejad is right that we can't do a damn thing about it at the moment. The Russians and Chinese are dead set against any attack by the US on Iran. With Iran's increasing oil wealth there are many military and civilian contracts to be given and the Russians have been the recipient of a lot of hard capital from the those deals over the years. The political climate in the US is another reason that a US led attack is unlikely.
The Israelis however are another matter entirely. The Iranians already possess significant missile capability. That capability coupled with a nuclear weapon in the hands of a religious fanatic is something that the Israelis cannot tolerate.
There is some disagreement in the western press as to how close Iran is to actually producing weapons grade materials. Make no mistake about the fact that the Israelis know just how close Iran is to building a bomb. When that is about to happen the Israelis will act to eliminate this threat. They are faced with very little choice. The only question is will it happen sooner or later?
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Hidden in plain sight
For those of us who have followed the Mary P.C. Cummings Trust over the years it has always been some what of a mystery as to what exact plans Boston had for the property. There have been rumor after rumor of developers meeting with attorneys to make proposals for the acquisition of the property but nothing concrete has ever been made public.
It has also been mentioned on numerous occasions that Boston would make use of a Cy Pres motion to attempt to break the trust in court. Any mention of this has resulted in calls to the attorney generals office, state representatives and senators to request that Burlington be made aware of any actions by Boston relative to the property. This has also been a standing order to the office of Kopelman and Paige, Burlington's town counsel.
Against the backdrop of these numerous requests it was some what shocking to see what has recently been found by 2 concerned citizens who made a public records request at the attorney generals office to look at all the files related to the Cummings Trust.
In those files appears an actual prepared filing for a Cy Pres suit against James Shannon, then Attorney General of Massachusetts. From the dates on the proposed consent decree and the dates during which Shannon served as attorney general it would appear that this document was created in sometime during 1987.
This came as quite a shock to me since I had served on the board of selectmen during the years of 1983 through 1990 and had never seen this document before nor was I ever notified of its existence. Just to make sure I wasn't suffering from memory loss I made a public records request to view Burlington files on the Cummings property. As I suspected there was no copy of the document in the files nor was there any reference to it that I could locate.
This brings up a number of questions that I sent (along with the hard copy of the filing for the public record) in a note to Town Administrator Robert Mercier. I have included a couple of passages for your review;
"My purpose in viewing the file was to determine whether or not there was any reference by town counsel, former special counsel Francis Bellotti or anyone else to the copy of the Cy Pres suit that has been recently uncovered at the attorney general's office. As you know, the town has had a very keen interest in this property over these many years and I am greatly disturbed to find Boston's complete strategy behind breaking the trust has been laid out in complete detail and apparently resting at the AG's office since 1987".
"How is it possible that after years of repeated requests to the AG, town counsel, state reps and state senators that this could exist without our knowledge and not be in our files? How is it that a non-resident, concerned citizen is informing us of information that we should have at our finger tips? I would be interested to hear town counsels explanation of this. Just as importantly is the fact that no one seems to know what happened to the suit. Was it filed or not? Was any kind of decision rendered? If it was not filed how did it come into the possession of the attorney general? Why didn't the attorney general notify us of its existence? What was Boston's reason for withdrawing or not filing it? Does town counsel know if it is going to be filed?"
In any event the most important aspect of this whole SNAFU is that Boston's intentions as well as the strategy is clearly laid out in this 19 year old document. How Burlington and Woburn prepare for it if it is resurrected and filed in court is now the question. Since Kopelman and Paige is now town counsel for both communities and given the fact that this item was hidden right under their noses all these years, forgive me if I am skeptical about the prospects of a vigorous and informed defense.
In any event the following is the proposed decree that Boston asked for in the suit if they were to prevail. Remember please that no one that I have queried seems to know if Boston actually did file the suit.
At a Probate Court held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in and for County of Middlesex, on the________day of __________, 1987.
On the petition for CY Pres regarding the testamentary trust created by the will of Mary P.C. Cummings and after hearing IT IS DECREED:
1. That the Court authorizes the formation of the Cummings Foundation, Inc. a public trust.
2. That the purpose of said Foundation will be to finally implement the intent of the testatrix as stated in the will specifically to establish "public pleasure ground" for the citizens of Boston, I.E. a country club for the poor. (note: This is somewhat laughable since Mrs. Cummings left the property and money in trust to Boston to accomplish this 60 years ago at the time of the creation of this document. Citizens of Boston is not mention in her will).
3. That the Trustees of the Cummings Foundation shall have the rights and obligations normally accorded to the trustees of charitable trusts; whose duty it shall be to oversee and monitor Trust fund investment; implement and acquire property, both real and personal, in accordance with the intent of the testatrix (note: the testatrix never inteded the trust to acquire property) and to conduct those activities pursuant to those duties accorded a "prudent trustee". (note Boston's defintition of a prudent trustee is in question here based on their performance over the years)
4. The Trusteees agree that they will not inveat in any below investment grade bonds, commoditites, trading in securitites on margin, Real Estate Investment Trusts, investmetn in working interests inoil/gas well, purchasing puts, calls and/or straddles; purchase of warrants; selling short or the purchase of any "senior security" or leveraged investment as defined by Section 2(a) (36) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.
5.That the Board of Trustees shall be appointed ex-officio and serve without compensation. The Board shall consist of the following members:
a. As chairperson, the Mayor of the City of Boston.
b. The Parks and Recreation Commissioner of the City of Boston.
c. The Collector-Treasurer of the City of Boston.
d. The President of the Boston City Council.
e. The Director of the Boston Sportswriters Association
f. The Director of the Boston Society of Landscape Architects.
6. That if by reason of abolition of any one or more of these officers or the declination or resignation of any one or more of these persons holding them thereby resulting in a temporary vacancy(ies) such vacancies shall be filled by the remaining members of the Board, by the election of a peron(s) whose respective postions and duties shall, in the opinion of the Board, most nearly correspond therewith.
7. Authorizing that the Executive Director of the Cummings Foundation shall be the Executive Secretary of the City of Boston Trust Office, unless, by a majority vote, the Board of Trustees shall determine otherwise. The Executive Director, as directed by the Trustees of the Cummings Foundation, shall have the authority to hire staff, contractors and purchase other goods and services wich will asssist in the performance of the goals of the Cummings Foundation.
8. Authorizing that the trustees to establish three seperate funds, each of which shall contain 33 1/3% of the total net proceeds derived from the sale of any and all of the Cummings Estate Properties. All cash assets held by the Trustees at the date of the entry of this decree shal also be divided and placed using the aforementioned percentages in each of the three funds. The three funds shall be established solely for the following purposes:
Fund A: To purchase real property within the City of Boston which shall be used exclusivley to create new parks. the parks shall be open at no charge to the public in perpetuity, and shall be designated as Mary Cummings Parks. The types of parks that may be created under fund A shall include, but not be limited to: parks of the type already existing throughoout Boston, parks on the grounds of newly-built housing developments, as well as public gardens, greenhouses and arboreta.
Fund B: To develop and construct recreational facilities in parks created under Fund A and in already existing parks within the City of Boston.
Fund C: As an endowment fund, the principal of which shall remain invested for five years from the date of the Foundation's legal exitence. The principal shall be investd at the discretion of the Executive Director subject to approval of the Trustees. Income of Fund C will be expended for the purpose of supplementing the support, maintenance, and refurbishing of parks and recreational facilities created by Funds A and B. However,under no circumstances shall Fund C be used to replace, substitute or otherwise supplant City of Boston general fund appropriations for Parks and Recreation purposes pertaining to areas applicable to to Funds A and B. Fund C may be utilized solely for the extraordinary expenses not normally included in the City budget inuring to the benfit of such projects previously established by monies from Funds A and B respectively.
9. That the Executive director shall maintain the financial records and accounts of the trust.
10. That an annual account of the Trust shall be rendered by the Executive Director duly audited by an independent auditor, signed and sworn to by at least a majority of the Trustees and that same be availabe for the public inspection.
So there you have it. At the time Boston wanted the property to be liquidated and placed in public trust to finally accomplish the goals of Mrs. Cummings. Essentially they were asking to do the same thing that Mrs. Cummings had already created and entrusted them with over 70 years ago. Their own filing indicts them on failing to meet the terms of Mrs. Cummings instructions.
It has also been mentioned on numerous occasions that Boston would make use of a Cy Pres motion to attempt to break the trust in court. Any mention of this has resulted in calls to the attorney generals office, state representatives and senators to request that Burlington be made aware of any actions by Boston relative to the property. This has also been a standing order to the office of Kopelman and Paige, Burlington's town counsel.
Against the backdrop of these numerous requests it was some what shocking to see what has recently been found by 2 concerned citizens who made a public records request at the attorney generals office to look at all the files related to the Cummings Trust.
In those files appears an actual prepared filing for a Cy Pres suit against James Shannon, then Attorney General of Massachusetts. From the dates on the proposed consent decree and the dates during which Shannon served as attorney general it would appear that this document was created in sometime during 1987.
This came as quite a shock to me since I had served on the board of selectmen during the years of 1983 through 1990 and had never seen this document before nor was I ever notified of its existence. Just to make sure I wasn't suffering from memory loss I made a public records request to view Burlington files on the Cummings property. As I suspected there was no copy of the document in the files nor was there any reference to it that I could locate.
This brings up a number of questions that I sent (along with the hard copy of the filing for the public record) in a note to Town Administrator Robert Mercier. I have included a couple of passages for your review;
"My purpose in viewing the file was to determine whether or not there was any reference by town counsel, former special counsel Francis Bellotti or anyone else to the copy of the Cy Pres suit that has been recently uncovered at the attorney general's office. As you know, the town has had a very keen interest in this property over these many years and I am greatly disturbed to find Boston's complete strategy behind breaking the trust has been laid out in complete detail and apparently resting at the AG's office since 1987".
"How is it possible that after years of repeated requests to the AG, town counsel, state reps and state senators that this could exist without our knowledge and not be in our files? How is it that a non-resident, concerned citizen is informing us of information that we should have at our finger tips? I would be interested to hear town counsels explanation of this. Just as importantly is the fact that no one seems to know what happened to the suit. Was it filed or not? Was any kind of decision rendered? If it was not filed how did it come into the possession of the attorney general? Why didn't the attorney general notify us of its existence? What was Boston's reason for withdrawing or not filing it? Does town counsel know if it is going to be filed?"
In any event the most important aspect of this whole SNAFU is that Boston's intentions as well as the strategy is clearly laid out in this 19 year old document. How Burlington and Woburn prepare for it if it is resurrected and filed in court is now the question. Since Kopelman and Paige is now town counsel for both communities and given the fact that this item was hidden right under their noses all these years, forgive me if I am skeptical about the prospects of a vigorous and informed defense.
In any event the following is the proposed decree that Boston asked for in the suit if they were to prevail. Remember please that no one that I have queried seems to know if Boston actually did file the suit.
At a Probate Court held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in and for County of Middlesex, on the________day of __________, 1987.
On the petition for CY Pres regarding the testamentary trust created by the will of Mary P.C. Cummings and after hearing IT IS DECREED:
1. That the Court authorizes the formation of the Cummings Foundation, Inc. a public trust.
2. That the purpose of said Foundation will be to finally implement the intent of the testatrix as stated in the will specifically to establish "public pleasure ground" for the citizens of Boston, I.E. a country club for the poor. (note: This is somewhat laughable since Mrs. Cummings left the property and money in trust to Boston to accomplish this 60 years ago at the time of the creation of this document. Citizens of Boston is not mention in her will).
3. That the Trustees of the Cummings Foundation shall have the rights and obligations normally accorded to the trustees of charitable trusts; whose duty it shall be to oversee and monitor Trust fund investment; implement and acquire property, both real and personal, in accordance with the intent of the testatrix (note: the testatrix never inteded the trust to acquire property) and to conduct those activities pursuant to those duties accorded a "prudent trustee". (note Boston's defintition of a prudent trustee is in question here based on their performance over the years)
4. The Trusteees agree that they will not inveat in any below investment grade bonds, commoditites, trading in securitites on margin, Real Estate Investment Trusts, investmetn in working interests inoil/gas well, purchasing puts, calls and/or straddles; purchase of warrants; selling short or the purchase of any "senior security" or leveraged investment as defined by Section 2(a) (36) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.
5.That the Board of Trustees shall be appointed ex-officio and serve without compensation. The Board shall consist of the following members:
a. As chairperson, the Mayor of the City of Boston.
b. The Parks and Recreation Commissioner of the City of Boston.
c. The Collector-Treasurer of the City of Boston.
d. The President of the Boston City Council.
e. The Director of the Boston Sportswriters Association
f. The Director of the Boston Society of Landscape Architects.
6. That if by reason of abolition of any one or more of these officers or the declination or resignation of any one or more of these persons holding them thereby resulting in a temporary vacancy(ies) such vacancies shall be filled by the remaining members of the Board, by the election of a peron(s) whose respective postions and duties shall, in the opinion of the Board, most nearly correspond therewith.
7. Authorizing that the Executive Director of the Cummings Foundation shall be the Executive Secretary of the City of Boston Trust Office, unless, by a majority vote, the Board of Trustees shall determine otherwise. The Executive Director, as directed by the Trustees of the Cummings Foundation, shall have the authority to hire staff, contractors and purchase other goods and services wich will asssist in the performance of the goals of the Cummings Foundation.
8. Authorizing that the trustees to establish three seperate funds, each of which shall contain 33 1/3% of the total net proceeds derived from the sale of any and all of the Cummings Estate Properties. All cash assets held by the Trustees at the date of the entry of this decree shal also be divided and placed using the aforementioned percentages in each of the three funds. The three funds shall be established solely for the following purposes:
Fund A: To purchase real property within the City of Boston which shall be used exclusivley to create new parks. the parks shall be open at no charge to the public in perpetuity, and shall be designated as Mary Cummings Parks. The types of parks that may be created under fund A shall include, but not be limited to: parks of the type already existing throughoout Boston, parks on the grounds of newly-built housing developments, as well as public gardens, greenhouses and arboreta.
Fund B: To develop and construct recreational facilities in parks created under Fund A and in already existing parks within the City of Boston.
Fund C: As an endowment fund, the principal of which shall remain invested for five years from the date of the Foundation's legal exitence. The principal shall be investd at the discretion of the Executive Director subject to approval of the Trustees. Income of Fund C will be expended for the purpose of supplementing the support, maintenance, and refurbishing of parks and recreational facilities created by Funds A and B. However,under no circumstances shall Fund C be used to replace, substitute or otherwise supplant City of Boston general fund appropriations for Parks and Recreation purposes pertaining to areas applicable to to Funds A and B. Fund C may be utilized solely for the extraordinary expenses not normally included in the City budget inuring to the benfit of such projects previously established by monies from Funds A and B respectively.
9. That the Executive director shall maintain the financial records and accounts of the trust.
10. That an annual account of the Trust shall be rendered by the Executive Director duly audited by an independent auditor, signed and sworn to by at least a majority of the Trustees and that same be availabe for the public inspection.
So there you have it. At the time Boston wanted the property to be liquidated and placed in public trust to finally accomplish the goals of Mrs. Cummings. Essentially they were asking to do the same thing that Mrs. Cummings had already created and entrusted them with over 70 years ago. Their own filing indicts them on failing to meet the terms of Mrs. Cummings instructions.
Monday, April 10, 2006
A few thoughts on the 06 campaign season
Here are a few thoughts regarding the 06 elections season.
It went pretty much as we had thought from the beginning. Al and Ralph have prevailed in what turned out to be a very vigorous selectmen's race. One measure of activity is campaign spending and I bet if a little research is done this might prove to be the most expensive campaign in Burlington's history in terms of total dollars spent.
Old methods and new were utilized through out the campaign. Technology continued to make its mark as for the first time the automated calls were made a staple of the strategy. Of course the email system again was vital to inter campaign communications. Ads, speeches, and mailing ideas all passed hands and were constructed and edited without anyone leaving home.
The impact of email can be further demonstrated in some of the town meeting races. The email that contained the excel spreadsheet on the voting records of each town meeting members during the past 5 roll call votes I think was a major factor in the defeat of a number of long time members.
Mailings, dear friends cards and endorsements all proved to be part of the core strategy and were used to effect. The sign wars again worked in our favor as we had superior visibility in lawn signs as well as at the corner since we simply wore down the competition. We had a presence of size every day since March 17th almost without exception.
As it turns out our concerns about incumbency and taxes were quite well founded. The anti incumbency can be seen to a degree in two cases as Sotiros was defeated and the yes questioned just barely won.
It can also be seen in that Al did not receive a majority of the 5593 votes cast. The dilution of the field turned out to be a deciding factor. Had Mooney not been in the race, a good portion of those votes might have gone to Zenkin and Patuto. The same can be said if any one of the other three (Patuto, Zenkin or Keene had not entered). Even Arsenault may have been a spoiler, had his votes gone Zenkin's way he might have defeated Patuto.
The turnout was quite interesting to watch. As I stood inside the foyer all day I was able to see the ebb and flow of the numbers as well as examine the make up of the demographics.
A couple of things stand out in my mind. I can't recall seeing the number of baby carriages at the polls as I did this year. Additionally it was almost comical to be inside the foyer and see the number of people who had no clue where they were going. "Hey buddy where are you going"? the reply was "do I vote here"?
This was further born out by the number of times I witnessed the precinct workers explaining how to use the ballot. The town clerk, Jane Chew also confirmed this to me by virtue of the fact that she had a great many ballots that were spoiled. A spoiled ballot can be caught by the voter before recording or it is recorded by the machines and the vote doesn't count because the person might have voted for three Selectmen or some other mistake. This might be a factor in the town meeting races if recounts are requested.
One thing that has been bugging me since the beginning of the sign holding has been the safety aspect. On a couple of occasions up at our regular place I witnessed little children holding signs, in addition I saw children on roller blades on the sidewalks during peak traffic hours. Quite frankly this scares the hell out of me.
As dangerous as that is it pales in comparison to the sign holding on the island in front of Dunkin Donuts. I have enclosed a letter I sent today to Chief Hart on the subject and will leave it at then end for your review.
In any event it was a hard fought and well deserved victory. We had the best prepared candidate as well as a well executed strategy. Based on current events we needed it in order for our guy not to be "Woburnized." This is of course is a reference to the then incumbent mayor of Woburn who had been defeated earlier this year in a stunning upset. The major issue of course turned out to be taxes.
It went pretty much as we had thought from the beginning. Al and Ralph have prevailed in what turned out to be a very vigorous selectmen's race. One measure of activity is campaign spending and I bet if a little research is done this might prove to be the most expensive campaign in Burlington's history in terms of total dollars spent.
Old methods and new were utilized through out the campaign. Technology continued to make its mark as for the first time the automated calls were made a staple of the strategy. Of course the email system again was vital to inter campaign communications. Ads, speeches, and mailing ideas all passed hands and were constructed and edited without anyone leaving home.
The impact of email can be further demonstrated in some of the town meeting races. The email that contained the excel spreadsheet on the voting records of each town meeting members during the past 5 roll call votes I think was a major factor in the defeat of a number of long time members.
Mailings, dear friends cards and endorsements all proved to be part of the core strategy and were used to effect. The sign wars again worked in our favor as we had superior visibility in lawn signs as well as at the corner since we simply wore down the competition. We had a presence of size every day since March 17th almost without exception.
As it turns out our concerns about incumbency and taxes were quite well founded. The anti incumbency can be seen to a degree in two cases as Sotiros was defeated and the yes questioned just barely won.
It can also be seen in that Al did not receive a majority of the 5593 votes cast. The dilution of the field turned out to be a deciding factor. Had Mooney not been in the race, a good portion of those votes might have gone to Zenkin and Patuto. The same can be said if any one of the other three (Patuto, Zenkin or Keene had not entered). Even Arsenault may have been a spoiler, had his votes gone Zenkin's way he might have defeated Patuto.
The turnout was quite interesting to watch. As I stood inside the foyer all day I was able to see the ebb and flow of the numbers as well as examine the make up of the demographics.
A couple of things stand out in my mind. I can't recall seeing the number of baby carriages at the polls as I did this year. Additionally it was almost comical to be inside the foyer and see the number of people who had no clue where they were going. "Hey buddy where are you going"? the reply was "do I vote here"?
This was further born out by the number of times I witnessed the precinct workers explaining how to use the ballot. The town clerk, Jane Chew also confirmed this to me by virtue of the fact that she had a great many ballots that were spoiled. A spoiled ballot can be caught by the voter before recording or it is recorded by the machines and the vote doesn't count because the person might have voted for three Selectmen or some other mistake. This might be a factor in the town meeting races if recounts are requested.
One thing that has been bugging me since the beginning of the sign holding has been the safety aspect. On a couple of occasions up at our regular place I witnessed little children holding signs, in addition I saw children on roller blades on the sidewalks during peak traffic hours. Quite frankly this scares the hell out of me.
As dangerous as that is it pales in comparison to the sign holding on the island in front of Dunkin Donuts. I have enclosed a letter I sent today to Chief Hart on the subject and will leave it at then end for your review.
In any event it was a hard fought and well deserved victory. We had the best prepared candidate as well as a well executed strategy. Based on current events we needed it in order for our guy not to be "Woburnized." This is of course is a reference to the then incumbent mayor of Woburn who had been defeated earlier this year in a stunning upset. The major issue of course turned out to be taxes.
A letter to the chief
Dear Chief Hart:
Now that the election season is over I believe it is time to bring attention to the issue of sign holding in the center island in front of Dunkin Donuts on Cambridge Street.
This is a practice that has grown in popularity over the past few years and quite frankly is in my view a tragedy waiting to happen. As you know, during this election season we did have an accident at that location which left an automobile lying on the island. Fortunately for all of us there were no campaigners on the island at the time.
I did not mention this during the election season because I did not want to bring up concerns about petty partisanship. However, now thankfully that we have concluded the election season without injury, I ask that you immediately inform the town politicians and the community at large that you are no longer going to allow this practice.
As our chief public safety officer, putting your foot down on this subject will make it a matter of public safety and common sense as opposed to a matter of politics. If this practice is not ended I honestly believe that we are courting the potential for a fatality. There are plenty of other highly visible locations that can accommodate enthusiastic campaigners without putting their life in jeopardy.
Regards,
Phil
Now that the election season is over I believe it is time to bring attention to the issue of sign holding in the center island in front of Dunkin Donuts on Cambridge Street.
This is a practice that has grown in popularity over the past few years and quite frankly is in my view a tragedy waiting to happen. As you know, during this election season we did have an accident at that location which left an automobile lying on the island. Fortunately for all of us there were no campaigners on the island at the time.
I did not mention this during the election season because I did not want to bring up concerns about petty partisanship. However, now thankfully that we have concluded the election season without injury, I ask that you immediately inform the town politicians and the community at large that you are no longer going to allow this practice.
As our chief public safety officer, putting your foot down on this subject will make it a matter of public safety and common sense as opposed to a matter of politics. If this practice is not ended I honestly believe that we are courting the potential for a fatality. There are plenty of other highly visible locations that can accommodate enthusiastic campaigners without putting their life in jeopardy.
Regards,
Phil
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Enough is enough
Shortly after being elected to the position of town moderator in last year's election I requested that the Ways and Means committee take up the issue of moving their meeting location from the second floor at the police station to the main hearing room.
It has been almost a year since that request and a vote by the committee on the issue has still not been taken. Last week I requested that the item be taken up under old business and a decision rendered. I was informed via email that despite the fact that any member may take an issue to the committee under old business, that the chairman had decided that a discussion would be again put off to a time of his choosing.
In the mean time the town budget is being prepared and presented to the Ways and Means committee and important issues of public budget policy are being debated in a an early 20th century converted school room.
A case in point was the school budget. A number of parents appeared at the meeting to discuss increasing the budget over the allotted three percent guideline. There was not enough space or seats in the room to accommodate them, nor was any of the debate seen or recorded for the rest of the community to witness.
This is no longer acceptable. Neither are delaying tactics or stubborn refusals to comply with common sense requests to make the budget process more taxpayer accessible. With that in mind I sent the committee the following communication. I do not believe that the majority of the committee is against televising the meetings. Their a re a couple of obstructionist, the chairman being the primary one who want to make this into something it is not. This communication clearly states my position.
Dear Members of the Ways and Means Committee,
Please allow me the opportunity to be perfectly clear about this issue. It is not about complaints or punishment or personality conflicts. This is about simple issue of the voters right to know and the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.
The town has a governmental channel designed solely for the purpose of bringing public meetings to the taxpayer. One by one over the past few years boards and commissions have been scheduled and regularly broadcast. The list includes the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Planning Board, Board of Appeals and Town Meeting. At some point in time it will also include the Recreation Commission and the Capital Budget committee.
The Ways and Means committee is the chief advisory body to the town meeting. In 2004 the town meeting requested that your meetings be televised. The issues that you are working on are fundamental to the operation of town government. Yes, you may be one of the first Ways and Means Committee to be televised in the state, however Burlington was also one of the first towns in the state to televise Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting.
The town has hearing rooms with robotic cameras and a sound system designed specifically to accommodate the broadcasting of these public governmental meetings. The town has designed and built an I-net for this purpose. The question that is being asked of you is to move your meeting location to facilitate a high quality broadcast of your meeting.
I am not asking for your permission to televise the meeting. If it is your choice to stubbornly resist changing your location and force the lugging of TV equipment to the police station then so be it. The meeting is going to be televised if I have to carry the equipment up there myself.
Regards,
Phillip Gallagher
Moderator
It has been almost a year since that request and a vote by the committee on the issue has still not been taken. Last week I requested that the item be taken up under old business and a decision rendered. I was informed via email that despite the fact that any member may take an issue to the committee under old business, that the chairman had decided that a discussion would be again put off to a time of his choosing.
In the mean time the town budget is being prepared and presented to the Ways and Means committee and important issues of public budget policy are being debated in a an early 20th century converted school room.
A case in point was the school budget. A number of parents appeared at the meeting to discuss increasing the budget over the allotted three percent guideline. There was not enough space or seats in the room to accommodate them, nor was any of the debate seen or recorded for the rest of the community to witness.
This is no longer acceptable. Neither are delaying tactics or stubborn refusals to comply with common sense requests to make the budget process more taxpayer accessible. With that in mind I sent the committee the following communication. I do not believe that the majority of the committee is against televising the meetings. Their a re a couple of obstructionist, the chairman being the primary one who want to make this into something it is not. This communication clearly states my position.
Dear Members of the Ways and Means Committee,
Please allow me the opportunity to be perfectly clear about this issue. It is not about complaints or punishment or personality conflicts. This is about simple issue of the voters right to know and the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.
The town has a governmental channel designed solely for the purpose of bringing public meetings to the taxpayer. One by one over the past few years boards and commissions have been scheduled and regularly broadcast. The list includes the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Planning Board, Board of Appeals and Town Meeting. At some point in time it will also include the Recreation Commission and the Capital Budget committee.
The Ways and Means committee is the chief advisory body to the town meeting. In 2004 the town meeting requested that your meetings be televised. The issues that you are working on are fundamental to the operation of town government. Yes, you may be one of the first Ways and Means Committee to be televised in the state, however Burlington was also one of the first towns in the state to televise Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting.
The town has hearing rooms with robotic cameras and a sound system designed specifically to accommodate the broadcasting of these public governmental meetings. The town has designed and built an I-net for this purpose. The question that is being asked of you is to move your meeting location to facilitate a high quality broadcast of your meeting.
I am not asking for your permission to televise the meeting. If it is your choice to stubbornly resist changing your location and force the lugging of TV equipment to the police station then so be it. The meeting is going to be televised if I have to carry the equipment up there myself.
Regards,
Phillip Gallagher
Moderator
Saturday, April 01, 2006
A week to go
There is only a week left in the local election season and for most of us it is seven days to many. You can only stand on a street corner holding a sign in the cold for so long before you wish you were doing anything else, even work!
This year has been about as exciting as a small town election can get. The race for selectman has featured 6 candidates vying for two slots. Al Fay is the only incumbent as Joe Impemba has retired after 15 years to run for the planning board. The other five candidates are John Keene, Ralph Patuto, Virginia Mooney, Walter Zenkin and Rocky Arsenault.
Coming into the run I had handicapped the race in order of projected finish this way; Ralph Patuto topping the ticket based on his strong but losing showing two years ago. Al Fay coming in second primarily because of his ability to mount a very strong campaign. Even though there were a number of issues to attack an incumbent on this year, the large number of candidates makes it likely that Fay's core support will be substantial enough to give him one of the two seats.
I picked John Keene to finish third primarily because he is a well known individual in town with many connections none of who have a bad word to say about him. He has lived here his whole life, run a successful business and managed not to offend to many people along the way. His lack of political experience in campaigning as well as lack of experience in serving may hold him back this time.
Early in the campaign I had picked Walter Zenkin to be a potential competitor for a top spot however I don't believe he was able to tap into any anti incumbent fervor nor was he able to transform his government experience into an advantage. He has been an effective leader in capital budget items and has experience at town meeting. Unfortunately, during the televised debates that will be running endlessly this week, he had a bit of stage fright and did not present his issues as well as he might have.
Virginia Mooney could be a wild card in the race although I doubt it. She is the only candidate in the race that has consistently criticized the incumbent board for poor performance. She may yet strike a chord of discontent but the problem for Ginny is that she has been saying the same exact things for the past 31 times that she has run for the board. She did win once in 1988 but proved to be ineffective in the position and was quickly defeated the next time out for re-election.
Rocky Arsenault got signatures enough to get himself on the ballot yet has done nothing that I am aware of that would indicate that he is a serious candidate. He did not submit an announcement, show up to any of the candidate forums, produce any literature , bumper stickers or signs. I don't think I am going out on a limb to predict that he won't be a factor.
In the contested school committee race I have incumbent Sharon Sotiros defeating new comer Michael Desimone. Sotiros is just finishing her first term on the school committee. Prior to her election she had served on the Ways and Means Committee. Michael Desimone has run a very strong campaign and if he is not successful this year he is certainly a candidate to watch in the future since it is apparent that he has a core of motivated supporters and he is very solid as a campaigner as well as in his personal appearances at candidate forums.
The question here is whether or not there is substantial enough reasons to defeat Sharon? The school department has had building issues however the school committee has been desperately seeking answers. They have worked as hard as possible to find solutions. On the education side it would appear that the school system is making very solid progress in MCAS scores and in general has been highly regarded from a management standpoint. The top leadership of the administration has brought stability and confidence to the table.
The teacher contract is a big question mark. Is Desimone in the race because the school committee attempted to hold the line against aggressive union demands? Many in town have questioned the over all strategy of the union. The whole mantra of how under appreciated the teachers are simply does not stand up under scrutiny. In the final analysis they held out for over a year for what they would have gotten in the beginning. During the year of demonstrations did they raise any voter animosity toward them? Or worse did it result in people arriving at the conclusion the union equates teacher appreciation and respect with higher pay raises than anyone else got?
Now let me qualify my predictions by including a couple of wild card items that could skew the races.
In the school committee race, is the group of hockey parents an emerging group with political muscle? This is a young group of parents and is the worker base of Desimone's campaign. The voting demographics of this age group in the past not been particularly strong. Will anti teacher union back lash result in solid support for Sotiros? Does Sotiros continue to enjoy solid support at the senior citizens center?
An interesting observation here is the results at the Democratic Party caucuses that were held several weeks ago. In a field of political operatives vying for delegate slots to the convention, Sotiros handily won election in a field of seasoned political operatives.
In the Selectmen's race the only real concern is whether or not Fay will be "Woburnized". This is a reference to Woburn Mayor John Curran who after a fairly strong campaign against a relative newcomer was soundly defeated. The primary reason was voter backlash against tax increases. The Woburn increase was 17% which, by the way pales in comparison to the 24% increase Burlington voters received.
The other wild card is the town center overlay referendum. Is this issue energizing the electorate enough to substantially raise voter turnout? I believe the referendum itself will not over turn the results of the town meeting vote. My main line of thinking is that if you have volunteer groups that labor long and hard to bring forward legislation and it goes through an arduous approval process with little opposition why would the electorate not support them? How can you expect people to take on these roles if after a great deal of their time and effort you repudiate their conclusions? In any event it will result in some impact n the races and I project the turnout to be 37% or approximately 5100 voters.
Let me close with full disclosure. I am supporting Fay for re-election for a variety of reasons. I have worked with him and against him for the past 25 years or so in a variety of different capacities. I was on the Board of Selectmen when he was the fire prevention officer and later as the union president. In those instances I found him to be extremely competent as a worker as well as a very worthy advocate for his union and a creative adversary.
In later years while he was on the board I worked against him on a number of issues. Despite being very vocal in opposition to him, when I came to the conclusion to run for office last year he was solidly in my camp and worked tirelessly for my election. More importantly than a political alliance is that Al Fay is a genuine "townie". He loves this place and I believe makes his decisions based on what is good for the people who live and work here.
This year has been about as exciting as a small town election can get. The race for selectman has featured 6 candidates vying for two slots. Al Fay is the only incumbent as Joe Impemba has retired after 15 years to run for the planning board. The other five candidates are John Keene, Ralph Patuto, Virginia Mooney, Walter Zenkin and Rocky Arsenault.
Coming into the run I had handicapped the race in order of projected finish this way; Ralph Patuto topping the ticket based on his strong but losing showing two years ago. Al Fay coming in second primarily because of his ability to mount a very strong campaign. Even though there were a number of issues to attack an incumbent on this year, the large number of candidates makes it likely that Fay's core support will be substantial enough to give him one of the two seats.
I picked John Keene to finish third primarily because he is a well known individual in town with many connections none of who have a bad word to say about him. He has lived here his whole life, run a successful business and managed not to offend to many people along the way. His lack of political experience in campaigning as well as lack of experience in serving may hold him back this time.
Early in the campaign I had picked Walter Zenkin to be a potential competitor for a top spot however I don't believe he was able to tap into any anti incumbent fervor nor was he able to transform his government experience into an advantage. He has been an effective leader in capital budget items and has experience at town meeting. Unfortunately, during the televised debates that will be running endlessly this week, he had a bit of stage fright and did not present his issues as well as he might have.
Virginia Mooney could be a wild card in the race although I doubt it. She is the only candidate in the race that has consistently criticized the incumbent board for poor performance. She may yet strike a chord of discontent but the problem for Ginny is that she has been saying the same exact things for the past 31 times that she has run for the board. She did win once in 1988 but proved to be ineffective in the position and was quickly defeated the next time out for re-election.
Rocky Arsenault got signatures enough to get himself on the ballot yet has done nothing that I am aware of that would indicate that he is a serious candidate. He did not submit an announcement, show up to any of the candidate forums, produce any literature , bumper stickers or signs. I don't think I am going out on a limb to predict that he won't be a factor.
In the contested school committee race I have incumbent Sharon Sotiros defeating new comer Michael Desimone. Sotiros is just finishing her first term on the school committee. Prior to her election she had served on the Ways and Means Committee. Michael Desimone has run a very strong campaign and if he is not successful this year he is certainly a candidate to watch in the future since it is apparent that he has a core of motivated supporters and he is very solid as a campaigner as well as in his personal appearances at candidate forums.
The question here is whether or not there is substantial enough reasons to defeat Sharon? The school department has had building issues however the school committee has been desperately seeking answers. They have worked as hard as possible to find solutions. On the education side it would appear that the school system is making very solid progress in MCAS scores and in general has been highly regarded from a management standpoint. The top leadership of the administration has brought stability and confidence to the table.
The teacher contract is a big question mark. Is Desimone in the race because the school committee attempted to hold the line against aggressive union demands? Many in town have questioned the over all strategy of the union. The whole mantra of how under appreciated the teachers are simply does not stand up under scrutiny. In the final analysis they held out for over a year for what they would have gotten in the beginning. During the year of demonstrations did they raise any voter animosity toward them? Or worse did it result in people arriving at the conclusion the union equates teacher appreciation and respect with higher pay raises than anyone else got?
Now let me qualify my predictions by including a couple of wild card items that could skew the races.
In the school committee race, is the group of hockey parents an emerging group with political muscle? This is a young group of parents and is the worker base of Desimone's campaign. The voting demographics of this age group in the past not been particularly strong. Will anti teacher union back lash result in solid support for Sotiros? Does Sotiros continue to enjoy solid support at the senior citizens center?
An interesting observation here is the results at the Democratic Party caucuses that were held several weeks ago. In a field of political operatives vying for delegate slots to the convention, Sotiros handily won election in a field of seasoned political operatives.
In the Selectmen's race the only real concern is whether or not Fay will be "Woburnized". This is a reference to Woburn Mayor John Curran who after a fairly strong campaign against a relative newcomer was soundly defeated. The primary reason was voter backlash against tax increases. The Woburn increase was 17% which, by the way pales in comparison to the 24% increase Burlington voters received.
The other wild card is the town center overlay referendum. Is this issue energizing the electorate enough to substantially raise voter turnout? I believe the referendum itself will not over turn the results of the town meeting vote. My main line of thinking is that if you have volunteer groups that labor long and hard to bring forward legislation and it goes through an arduous approval process with little opposition why would the electorate not support them? How can you expect people to take on these roles if after a great deal of their time and effort you repudiate their conclusions? In any event it will result in some impact n the races and I project the turnout to be 37% or approximately 5100 voters.
Let me close with full disclosure. I am supporting Fay for re-election for a variety of reasons. I have worked with him and against him for the past 25 years or so in a variety of different capacities. I was on the Board of Selectmen when he was the fire prevention officer and later as the union president. In those instances I found him to be extremely competent as a worker as well as a very worthy advocate for his union and a creative adversary.
In later years while he was on the board I worked against him on a number of issues. Despite being very vocal in opposition to him, when I came to the conclusion to run for office last year he was solidly in my camp and worked tirelessly for my election. More importantly than a political alliance is that Al Fay is a genuine "townie". He loves this place and I believe makes his decisions based on what is good for the people who live and work here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)