2 ejected from contentious Templeton town meeting
By George Barnes TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFFgbarnes@telegram.com
TEMPLETON — Residents wrapped up a three-day town meeting Wednesday night, but not before two people were tossed from the hall.
Voters approved an article prohibiting selectmen from serving on any governmental boards, committees or commissions of which the town is a member, but either took no action or defeated all other articles left on the warrant for the third day of town meeting.
Voters also amended an article, first approved Monday, allowing the town to seek special legislation to address the town deficit. It was pointed out by town counsel that the earlier wording could result in selectmen being held personally liable for certain expenditures.
All other articles considered Wednesday night were on the warrant as citizen petitions. Some resulted in angry debate.
During the discussions over two articles seeking restrictions on fluoride in the town's water, resident Beverly Bartolomeo was ejected from the meeting after a second outburst over the matter. The articles — one seeking a fluorosis warning on water bills and another giving town meeting power over issues involving fluoride in town water rather than the Municipal Light and Water Board — were passed over by voters.
A second resident Kirk Moschetti, was ejected from the meeting during debate over rescinding fines for marijuana use on town property. Town moderator Michael Gary told Mr. Moschetti to leave for berating resident Steven Drury, who had proposed rescinding the fines.
The marijuana petition was defeated.
By a 51-49 vote, an article seeking changes in the town's Advisory Board was also passed over. Voters defeated four other articles. Those defeated were: an article seeking to set requirements for posting town meeting notices; a proposal to change the annual town meeting from a Saturday to a weeknight; and the creation of new rules that would have made it easier to request a paper ballot vote at town meeting. A move that would have exempted the town from the requirements of the Narragansett Regional School District until the town is given membership on the School Committee equal to its percentage of students was deemed by town counsel to be illegal as it sought to exempt the town from state law.
Contact George Barnes at george.barnes@telegram.com. Follow him on Twitter @georgebarnesTG
I would like to set the record straight on article 36 concerning adopting Special Legislation giving Annual Town Meeting the right to decide on fluoridating or not fluoridating the town water supply. Mr. Barnes states that currently the Light and Water decide the fluoride addition to the town water supply,this to my understanding is not the case. Even though it is believed that Mr. Blais made a statement about not taking the fluoride out of the water supply regardless of the vote, it is the Board of Health who can put fluoride in the water. The Board of Health can not take the fluoride out of the water but can put it in. Think about what Ch 111 Sec 8C means, as a Board of Health member you can put the poison in the town water supply but you are not legally able to take it out. It is irresponsible to vote on fluoridation when your decision can not be reversed. Fluoride is not a nutrient it is a drug. In 90% of the cases this drug is also a hazardouts waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry or other industry. There are no doctors at the Board of Health to monitor the dose for each individual patient as no one knows how much water is being consumed or how much fluoride is coming from different sources. If you don't know the weight of the patient how can you be sure the patient is not getting to much of the drug? In closing it is the Board of Health who oversees water fluoridation from what I understand. Pete Farrell
ReplyDeleteAccording to eyewitness accounts, even though Mr. Moschetti left somewhat frustrated it was good to see by his hand gesture of the one finger salute that our new Moderator is still number one in Mr. Moschetti's book. This type of positive reinforcement (one finger salute) is what drives people in town to want to be Town Moderator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. Barnes incorrectly interpreted Article 42 - Composition of Regional School Committee :
ReplyDelete" A move that would have exempted the town from the requirements of the Narragansett Regional School District until the town is given membership on the School Committee equal to its percentage of students was deemed by town counsel to be illegal as it sought to exempt the town from state law. "
This article would not have exempted the town from requirements of the NRSD. It would have exempted the town from the nuclear option - 603 CMR 41.05 until the composition of the school committee accurately reflected the proportional cost assigned to Templeton based on student population.
The composition of the NRSD school committee is 8 elected members. 5 members from Templeton and 3 members from Phillipston.Documentation on the budget presented by the Supt. of school indicates that Templeton's enrollment is 82.35%. Templeton is on the hook for 82.35 % of the all costs based on this enrollment figure.
Templeton's representation on the school committee is 5/8th's which equates to 62.5% representation while Templeton pays 82.35 % of the costs. To some people this seems inherently unjust. It could be considered taxation without representation.
A member of the Advisory Board spoke to the inequity of Templeton's representation on the NRSD budget subcommittee. Templeton's voting members on this committee did not reflect the percentage that Templeton is expected to pay for its school assessment.
Taxation WITH representation. What a concept!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would like to set the record straight too The marijuana " by law" Repeal , was never voted on !!!! it was dismissed , the vote which took place was on a motion to correct ,which was never corrected then the question was deem not in existence The Town moderator made a attempt to move the question confuse us all when 1st motion was place and 2ed on the floor , In any since both legal council decide the question on by law did not exist , considering even the vote as evidence latter to support I objected I can not explain the truth herein within 4000 letters what happen in summing , without detail , is simple Amen 43 was{ suppress } and never voted on.. I was attack even, not recognize in attempt being vocal on point of order standing before TM my hand rose being vocal respectfully , the TM refuse to recognize me which is not procedure. In anycase asking a point of order TM must address he did not he moved dissolved the town meeting at the end , I asked him " why he did not address me he stated " " i did not hear you wow I guess i needed the mike ah , i was standing right before him, arm risen he did look at me my hand rose asking him twice for point of order . twice
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt seems Mr. Barnes would be able to report what really happened at town meeting if he had actually been there, but he was not. First of all, I had a problem with Mr. Dickson deciding that because he does not like something on a Citizen's petition, the rest of the people in the room, do not deserve to hear any discussion on the matter. I was very tired that night and I probably should have stayed home, but I didn't. I told him out of frustration, that he was a ass hole. Not very lady like, but that is what I said. The second the moderator was not happy, any excuse will do, was because I tried to prove a point about the Advisory Board. Mr.Spring along with the members of his board, have done more work than any other A.B. in the history of this town, and I am willing to bet $100.00 on that fact. I did not feel John Columbus's Article to change the way the A.B. were appointed would improve matters at all. I stood up and relayed some information from the Annual Town Reports for the past five years, This is what I said.
DeleteIn Fy. 07 The Advisory Board was short by three members most of the year. Fy. 08 The report does not say how they managed, but did say they have resignations when the report was written, and that they needed five members out of nine at a meeting for a quorum. In Fy.09 It is worth mentioning, the Advisory Board spent 173.00 for letters to be placed in light bills to recruit members. In Fy.10, This board went from nine members in previous years, to a board of seven, thus making it necessary to have four members to reach a quorum. This board's Chairman was Mr. Mattson, a MWCC student. That is a fact. I did not say anything bad about him, but when I said his name Virginia started screaming and the Moderator started telling me not do disparage anyone. I did not say anything that was not a fact. When I went to sit down I said Mr. Spring's board had a 90% participation from his board. I was upset, and said I was sorry If I did something wrong, and I am just a old lady trying to help her town, or something to that effect, so he threw me out. Now do I think I was ejected because I had told him I had a problem with him having a conflict of interest, because his wife teaches at the school?? Absolutely !! I guess I will have to see what the Attorney General thinks. Bev.
Delete