Saturday, March 1, 2014

Templeton enters election season

Templeton enters election season

Eryn Dion
News Staff Writer

TEMPLETON — Election season is getting into full swing, as nomination papers are now available in the Town Clerk’s Office for a variety of prominent positions in the town’s government.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Jeffrey Bennett, who was elected in 2011, will see his three-year term expire in May, along with newest member Diane Haley Brooks. Ms. Brooks was elected in January’s special election to fill a seat left vacant since last year and has already announced her intention to seek re-election.

Mr. Bennett has not yet taken out nomination papers, however they are available until March 13 at the clerk’s office.


Mark Moschetti and Richard Trifilo, chairmen of the Sewer Commission and Board of Health respectively, will be up for re-election this year.

There are three-year positions available at the Cemetery and Parks Commission, and Community Preservation Committee.

Five-year positions are open on the Planning Board and Housing Authority, as well as a one-year town moderator term.

There is already a crowded race forming for two Narragansett School Committee seats currently held by John Columbus and Henry Mason. Mr. Columbus and Mr. Mason have both received nomination papers, but will face competition from current Board of Selectmen member Julie Farrell, as well as Catherine Vancelette and Andrew Rob-inson. Ms. Farrell formerly served on the Elementary School Building Committee, but recently stepped down and was replaced by board Vice Chairman Kenn Robinson.

This year’s Town Election will be held on May 5 at the Narragansett High School gymnasium. The last day to submit papers to the clerk’s office is March 17.


38 comments:

  1. Lets not forget the L+W commission chairman Dana Blaise is also up. With your help i will give dana his long needed break from the board and will work to make a more open and cooperative department for the sake of Templeton and her shareholders.
    I look forward to your support and will try again for the seat open on the commission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, you will have my support. Unseating Mr. Blais will give the Commission one person that understands what is going on at the Light and Water Departments. I can't understand how a person can be a L&W Commissioner for so long and not have a clue that residents could receive benefits from MMWEC, for buying energy saving appliances. Add to that being so unwilling to help the elderly and people with disabilities, because it would cost the Light Company too much. Dana is a supporter of John Driscoll and did not disagree with the Manager's opinion that, if the Light and Water Departments give anything to the rate payers, they would only take the funds from the rate payers pocket, only to cover the cost of these added benefits. Needless to say, the Commissioners are in need of a attitude adjustment. A new voice is needed very badly, so good luck. You have my full support. Bev.

      Delete
    2. Dave,
      You have my support. Thank you for running for this important position. Good luck!

      Delete
    3. Dave,
      You have my support. Thank you for running for this important position. Good luck!

      Delete
  2. I am confused. Julie is running for school committee. Is her selectman seat up for election?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Didn't DOR recommend that elected officials be prohibited from serving in any other elected position? I thought we were on the path to trying to follow these DOR recommendations. I remain confused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's OK Voice Julie does what she wants to

    ReplyDelete
  5. They are now playing symantics saying the school ISNT part of the town, so its OK. Even though the DOR advises against it & its a clear COI. No worries though, nobody who calls the voters "gang rapists" will get elected.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Puffy,
    Please explain the minimum contribution. Please explain "target share".

    The nuclear option should NEVER be used.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julie, please tell us what your solution is. Please tell us which votes you advocate. Another override for town? Or more cuts? Or shutdown? The debt exclusion for the biomass? Please tell us how you plan to help the town? The school? Bring in business? Please tell us why YOU are again disregarding the DOR report? Oh. & please explain why you are running for anything if you don't know the difference between target share & minimum legal contribution.

      Delete
    2. Puffy,
      I have responded to your questions in prior blog posts. You must have missed them. The only thing I have not commented on is the biomass question. I think the biomass issue deserves more attention. Hopefully there will be a town hall meeting to discuss the biomass project and its costs in the near future.

      Almost forgot...

      Please explain the minimum contribution. Please explain "target share".

      The nuclear option should NEVER be used.


      Delete
    3. Approved at the Annual Town Meeting in May 2013 was the sum of $4,430,615 for the NRSD. This sum does not include debt service.

      Of course, we all know that the NRSD got an additional $500k from just Templeton's share. That made Templeton's non-debt contribution to the NRSD around $5 million.

      For FY14, Templeton's minimum contribution was 3,622,955. Templeton exceeded that by around $1.4 million.

      For FY15, Templeton's preliminary minimum contribution is $3,751,960.

      Why are some people claiming that Templeton is not doing their share to educate the students?

      Delete
    4. Mark, are those #'s the minimum legal requirement or the target share as set by DESE?

      Delete
    5. Puffy,
      Please define "minimum contribution". Please explain "target share".

      The nuclear option should NEVER be used.

      Delete
  7. The DOR recommended selectmen not holding any other town offices and I believe there was a town meeting vote for a by-law keeping selectmen from holding any other town elected office and Light and water. School committee is a separate legal entity and they follow different rules from the town. If you check local state aid web site, you will see Templeton share of chapter 70 monies shown as zero because it is shown under NRHS school district. If you check the town personnel policy, you will see school officials exempt. Once the school district gets their pile of money on the table (so to speak) the superintendent and school committee use it and move it as opposed to the town having to have a town meeting. The DOR review specifically mentions personnel board which no longer exists and the light & water commission. It also mentions other elected or appointed officials ineligible to serve on other boards or committees. So if we follow to the letter, elected Planning board member Kirk Moschetti would not be able to serve on the elementary school building committee and so on down the line. In the end, the voters will decide and I do not recall this being an issue last year when elected planning board member Frank Moschetti ran for Light & water commission. It may be the individual running but again, the voters will decide and I wonder if it is legal to stop someone for running for elected office or position which is outside of town government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So now they're completely separate, yet you want control of their budget?

      Delete
  8. Never said I want to control their budget but I have said there should be efforts to contain the growth of it, just like cities and towns are constrained by prop 2 1/2 and when you consider Templeton provides for part of their budget I believe the town should have a say in it, as in how much is made available. After it is on their table, then they control it. The elementary school, now that belongs to the town, referred to in the contract as the owner. And that has never been communicated to MSBA clearly enough in my opinion. ciao

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. & the SC is also their governing body. Which should fall under the DOR recommendation

      Delete
    2. The DOR report has no mention of the Narragansett REGIONAL School District. The DOR review was a review of the TOWN OF TEMPLETON's finances.

      Delete
    3. The "town bylaw" clearly states... " NO OTHER ELECTED OFFICE IN TOWN". How much more clear do you need it to be?

      Delete
    4. Puffy,
      You seem a bit agitated.
      Check with the town clerk. Check with the Secretary of State - Elections Division.

      Delete
    5. I'm not agitated, I just think its hypocritical of you to act contrary to the DOR report you always cite, & act in clear violation ( in intent at least) of the town bylaws. Not a good show of leadership.

      Delete
    6. Puffy,
      Just because you didn't pay attention to the wording of the bylaw doesn't mean I didn't. The school committee has never been a part of the town. School committee members are elected by both Templeton and Phillipston voters.

      To further demonstrate that rules that apply elected Town officials in Templeton, there is no recall process for school committee members. If people are dissatisfied with school committee members the only option the voters have is to vote in new members at each election.

      I'm running for school committee to give people a choice.

      Delete
    7. Almost forgot.

      The nuclear option should NEVER be used.

      Delete
    8. The wording is the key. Now pay attention..,,..... "No other elected office in town"... NOT, "No other elected town office " See the difference?

      Delete
    9. Now pay attention, Puffy. You are getting close. The school is not the town. See the difference?

      Please define minimum contribution. Please define target share.

      The nuclear option should NEVER be used.

      Delete
    10. The school is in town. The elementary schools are owned by the town. The town votes for the committee members. It is an elected office in town.
      The priorities of the two positions are in direct conflict of each other. How can you possibly justify blatently ignoring the bylaw, the intent of the DOR report of which you talk about all the time, & the voters who voted for these?
      The only reason to not file a formal complaint is that it will be enjoyable to see just how few votes you get.

      Delete
  9. Copied directly from the DOR Report:

    2. Prohibit Elected Officials from Holding Any Other Position
    Article IV of the town bylaws already prohibits an elective or appointive town officer or town employee from serving on the town advisory board. In its personnel policy, with the exception of two selectmen and an advisory committee member, no elected or appointed official may serve as a personnel board member. With these precedents in place, we recommend that the town approve a bylaw precluding all elected officials from serving in any other elected or appointed positions. This will allow them to focus on their primary responsibilities.
    Two current selectmen, one of whom also serves on the personnel board and the other as an elected light & water commissioner, are continually at odds. It is our impression that their adversarial relationship arises as well when the board of selectmen addresses issues that involve the personnel board, the light & water commission, or the sewer commission. The extent to which their differences impact the progress of town business is reason enough to enact a bylaw that makes elected or appointed officials ineligible to serve on other boards and committees. If a bylaw were to pass, each selectman would fill out the remainder of his or her term on other boards and commissions.

    Town by-law:
    Section 1. The Selectmen shall have the general direction and management of the property and
    affairs of the town in all matters not otherwise provided for by laws or these By-
    Laws.
    (a) Selectmen shall not serve in any other elected capacity within the Town or
    Municipal Light Department as recommended in 2009 DOR Financial Management
    Review. Passed 5-16-13
    The by-law language is very specific towards the selectman not serving in two capacities, yet the DOR recommendation appears more general: "The extent to which their differences impact the progress of town business is reason enough to enact a bylaw that makes elected or appointed officials ineligible to serve on other boards and committees."

    Is the School Committee an elected board of the town or not? The Templeton school board members are elected by the citizens of the town. I don't know. I think I could make a case both ways. I think the issue becomes making sure you are focusing on the primary responsibilities of your elected/appointed position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I think, "Selectmen shall not serve in any other elected capacity" is unambiguous.

      Put it this way. The BOS sole responsibility is the good of the town, even if its sometimes at the detriment of the school, & the SC's sole responsibility is the school. There is an inherent COI for 1 person on both boards with two opposite priorities.

      Delete
    2. You know the only reason Julie wants to be on the school board is so she can try to control it, but she will only be one person and with the way in which Julie has referred to the School Committee and the Superentendent I would think she will have the hardest time fitting in. If I was on the school board after she referred to everyone as "gang rapists' it would be a cold day in hell when I would say a word to her or acknowledge her presence. Julie will be more harm than good on the School Committee as would Jeff, they are determined to continue their fight with the school that will not make for a healthy school committee

      Delete
    3. That is EXACTLY what we need, people who will not be kiss-asses and say yes ma'am to everything put before them by the superintendant.

      Delete
  10. Puffy and NDETFFI-
    When I was elected to school committee back in 1995, most of the votes were 7-1. Guess who was the "1" vote.

    Puffy,
    You are the one who has inspired me to run for school committee. If elected to the school committee, I will NEVER vote to use the "nuclear option" to fund the budget. The ends do NOT justify the means. It is wrong (not illegal) to turn for NO votes into a YES vote and decimate a town's budget with NO EFFORT TO COMPROMISE.

    The "nuclear option" has created fallout which will be felt for years. Since the voters can't recall the school committee members, the other option is to elect candidates that will work with both Templeton and Phillipston and NEVER USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet it is AGAINST TOWN BYLAWS!!! Are you telling us your stepping down from the BOS?

      Delete
    2. Also, it did not decimate the towns budget, it ADDED to it. They compromised for a decade yet the town never did. They did what they had to & in the end the entire town will benefit. Remember, more people voted for it than against it. And you calling them "gang rapists" didn't help.

      Delete
  11. I think that John Columbus should run for selectman along with Diane Haley-Brooks think both of them will add a balance to the BOS that is so needed at this point. John has a great working knowledge of the town and can bring that experience to the BOS. Come on John run!

    ReplyDelete
  12. thats all we need is another "Yes Man" to Ruth Miller on the board.

    ReplyDelete
  13. John has taken out papers for school committee.

    ReplyDelete