| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2010 : 7:46:33 PM
|
Is it official yet?
I am hearing it's not dead yet. The meeting is still going on.
"Here comes the judge" |
Edited by - massdee on 02/24/2010 8:14:21 PM |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2010 : 9:48:27 PM
|
From what I have been told the Charter Commission is hanging on by a thread until their next meeting on March 8th.
"Here comes the judge" |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2010 : 10:40:58 AM
|
I just came across a web site that contains a great deal of information on Charter reform. It's a site that concentrates on the Everett Charter and it's Commission and updates on the Charter Commission meetings. It's is very informative and not biased one way or the other.
Here is the link:
You must be logged in to see this link.
Also, here is the update from that site on last nights meeting.
An Explanation and a Status
The reason that my e-mail of February 13, 2010 to the City Clerk and the associated attachment have not been posted to this site before now was that I was waiting for a confirmation from the City Clerk that I understood the issue correctly before I went public with this information. As of Monday, February 22, 2010, I had not received any reply to that e-mail. So on Monday evening, I went to City Hall to see if I could catch up with Mr, Matarazzo and find out what was up.
However, when I arrived at City Hall, I happened to run into Mr. Schlosberg before I tracked down Mr. Matarazzo. While he was reluctant to come right out and say it to me, we talked around the issue enough so that I thought that I had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen at tonight's Charter Review Committee meeting. As such, I didn't feel that it was necessary to actually send that final communication to the committee.
Mr. Schlosberg thanked me for being discreet with this information. So I felt that it was necessary to continue to do so until the committee could announce their findings to the general public themselves. And I continued to do that even though it appeared that information leaked out that something big was going to happen at tonight's meeting.
I finally did catch up with Mr. Matarazzo to find out why he hadn't responded to my e-mail. He explained that the only reason that he hadn't responded was because he thought that any news on the issue should have come directly from the Charter Review Commission and not from him. I had no problem with that and agree with that answer.
So what is the current status of the issue? Not exactly what I expected after my conversation Monday night. At their meeting of February 24, 2010, the Charter Review Commission voted to get an opinion on the issue in writing from the City Solicitor and the Attorney General's office. I believe that the item was also referred to our State Representative's office and Marilyn Contreas at the Department of Housing and Community Development, which overseas the Home Rule Charter process at the state level, for whatever help and guidance they can provide. I may not have the actual motion that was made and approved 100% correct because I didn't come to the meeting equipped to take notes. If you haven't attended one of these meetings, it is difficult to follow and remember all the motions and amendments that are made to them without writing them down. But that certainly was the gist of it.
I had no problem with the outcome of this particular issue at this evening's meeting. It's all I was asking for in the first place. I was just surprised because I got the impression that this had already been done in some fashion based upon the conversation that I had Monday night. But remember that I was never told anything directly on Monday night. And it's probably proper that a motion to seek a ruling came from the entire committee, rather than just one member.
So the work of the Charter Review Commission will continue on as they await a decision. The only thing that was deferred tonight as a result was a vote of on the hiring of a Charter consultant to aid the committee in their work. That hiring decision was tabled until the other ruling is received.
"Here comes the judge" |
Edited by - massdee on 02/25/2010 12:49:23 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 07:36:53 AM
|
Does this sound familar?
Holyoke charter panel faces legal scrutiny
Thursday, February 25, 2010
By MIKE PLAISANCE
mplaisance@repub.com
HOLYOKE - City Clerk Susan M. Egan has asked the Law Department to determine whether errors were made in the formation of the charter study commission.
Voters said "yes" by a wide margin on Nov. 3 to establishing a charter study commission to review the form of government in place here since 1896.
But now commission members and other officials are wrestling with questions after talks with a state official who specializes in charter studies.
The issue is whether the question needed to be placed in the form of a petition signed by at least 15 percent of the city's registered voters or whether the way the question was placed, with a City Council vote, was valid, officials said.
Egan said the election division of the state secretary of state's office approved placement of the charter commission question on the ballot by vote of the City Council in a conversation she had with the agency a year ago.
That also was how the last charter study was created here in 1973, she said.
"We did it the way we were told to do it," Egan said.
She asked the Law Department to study the issue because conflicting views have surfaced, she said.
Carl Eger Jr., chairman of the charter study commission, said in a voice-mail message the commission will discuss the issue at its next meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday at 6:45 p.m. at the Geriatric Authority, 45 Lower Westfield Road.
"We're trying to reconcile, simply stated, where we're at given the questions that have arisen relevant to the ballot issue," Eger said.
Commission Vice Chairman Daniel B. Bresnahan, who is director of the city Health Department, said it would be disappointing if the process has to be halted.
Those who ran for positions on the unpaid commission have jobs and families and did so because they wanted to volunteer to improve city government, he said.
"We're certainly not doing it for the glamour," Bresnahan said.
The City Council, after prodding from former Mayor Michael J. Sullivan, voted 8-6 in April to put two questions on the Nov. 3 ballot. One question asked voters whether they wanted a panel established to study the form of government here as outlined in the 114-year-old city charter.
That question - "Shall a commission be elected to amend the Charter for the City of Holyoke?" passed with nearly 73 percent of the vote.
The other question asked voters to choose nine residents for the commission from a field of 22.
Marilyn Contreas senior policy analyst with the Department of Housing and Community Development, said on Tuesday she has spoken with local officials about the issue. Establishing a charter commission requires a petition to place a ballot question signed by at least 15 percent of a community's registered voters, she said.
As for putting a charter commission question on the ballot by a City Council vote, she said, "There's no provision in the law for that."
The charter commission has been meeting twice a month. It could continue its work, but in the form of an adviser to the City Council, approval from which would be required to pursue charter changes, she said.
But councilors' support for the charter commission process has been tepid, as seen by the narrow vote to place the ballot question and an earlier 8-7 vote against that step.
Some councilors said that supporters of a charter commission ballot question should have done the work and gathered signatures of 15 percent of the city's registered voters. The city has 23,962 registered voters and 15 percent of that is about 3,600.
Among the possible charter changes discussed are reducing the size of the 15-member City Council and merging departments.
You must be logged in to see this link.
"Here comes the judge" |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2010 : 7:45:22 PM
|
| Any news on where the charter commission stands? Can they move forward or are we back to square one? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 7:54:42 PM
|
| The BOA is petitioning the state to make our Charter Commission legal. They did it at last nights BOA meeting. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2010 : 10:43:40 PM
|
City to Petition Legislature to Validate Charter Commission
Fate of Elected Body Remains Uncertain
By Keith Spencer
At Monday’s meeting of the Board of Alderman, members asked Mayor Carlo DeMaria, Jr. to petition the state legislature for a special act to validate the legal status of the Everett Charter Commission. Last week, city solicitor Colleen Mejia issued an opinion that the body was not elected properly after members of the commission had recently questioned the validity of their establishment.
In a resolution sponsored by Aldermen Robert Van Campen and Sal Sachetta as well as Councilors Peter Napolitano, Daniel Napolitano, and Sal DiDomenico, the city council hopes to remedy the fate of charter review by calling upon legislators and Governor Patrick to certify the legality of the body because all were involved in the initial process.
“Everyone involved in this process, including the legislature, was wrong,” said Alderman Van Campen on Monday.
“It went through multiple layers, and now all of a sudden there is a question. If that is true, then everyone going up the chain in the state has been wrong, and [the legislature] is the only body we can ask to fix the problem.”
In her opinion, Mejia has stated that the Everett Charter Commission can only act as an advisory panel due to flaws in the election process. According to the solicitor, the procedures under Massachusetts General Law, chapter 43B were not followed, which now brings into question the empowerment of the commission. Mejia stated that, “the procedures under this law must be followed precisely”.
While the Everett City Charter does present an option for the city council to submit questions, chapter 43B, section 3 sets forth specific language as to how a charter commission shall be elected.
“A local charter rule simply cannot allow a variance from this,” Mejia noted.
Alderman Van Campen was adamant that the commission be allowed to continue to do the work they were elected to do by almost 80% of voters. He called charter review “the biggest issue that will affect this city in the next 50, 75, or 100 years”.
The ward-five alderman ensured residents that this action was simply about the commission’s legality, and did not reflect council members’ opinions on the work of the body. The alderman pointed to the overwhelming affirmative vote to establish the commission as evidence enough to make certain their work finally gets off the ground.
“Her opinion is that there was a technical flaw in the way it was established. In my opinion, we cannot turn the clock back,” added Van Campen.
Ward-two Alderman Michael Mangan was the sole member to voice any apprehension over the commission’s future, expressing concern that the body was not looking at enough issues.
“In my opinion, it was about reviewing the entire charter, and what I have seen and heard so far is that not everything is being reviewed,” Mangan said. “I just want the reassurance that a multitude of items will be addressed.”
Mangan was quickly shut off for straying from the topic of the resolution, and eventually voted in favor of the measure. The resolution passed on a voice vote, and the issue has now been referred to the Mayor’s office.
Residents came out in strong support of forming a commission on the November ballot, with 3,093 voting in favor of electing the nine-member panel with just 831 voting against the process.
The city’s charter was established in 1892 after residents petitioned the legislature to officially incorporate the town. Nearly 118 years later, the charter remains largely in tact, leaving Everett as the sole bicameral local legislature in the Commonwealth and the entire United States.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2010 : 11:09:23 PM
|
I think it’s great the entire city council is in favor of supporting the charter commission and Sal DiDomenico pledging help at a state level to keep it going. Right now, charter is at a standstill until this gets cleared up. Once they are back, and there are no more “little contradictions” that can stall them then……the issues can be brought up.
I hear council members complaining that they don’t like the issues being brought up, well…the commission hasn’t even got off the ground. They have two years, and if councilors don’t like route the commission is taking, then they can participate in the process just like everyone else.
Just when did the solicitor make this “little contradiction” discovery? It certainly was not before it went through all the steps and signed by the governor.
These meetings should be recorded for the public to view. The commission can do it themselves, just set up a tripod and hit record. |
|
|
|
kimmy
Member
32 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2010 : 6:50:59 PM
|
The state screwed up in other city’s I hope it all gets corrected. Deval Patrick and his team are not doing a good job and the special legislation should be state wide not city and town individually. Holyoke has 44 on thier charter You must be logged in to see this link.
MASSACHUSETTS LOCAL NEWS
Breaking news from Western Massachusetts
Deadline nears for vote on Holyoke charter review commission
April 19, 2010, 8:03PM
HOLYOKE - The City Council might do something unusual Tuesday when it decides whether to validate the currently-in-limbo charter review commission.
The council will consider whether to approve the pursuit of special state legislation in the 7:30 p.m. meeting at City Hall.
The unusual nature of the proposal consists of requests from the mayor and others that the council vote on the measure during the same meeting at which it received the measure instead of making the usual committee referral for study and debate.
Time is tight because the Legislature’s formal session ends on July 31 and lawmakers are busy with major statewide issues such as the next fiscal year’s budget and casino gambling.
“Time is of the essence and any further delay will be adverse to the best interests of the city of Holyoke in the conduct of the study of the city’s charter,” Mayor Elaine A. Pluta writes in the special legislation resolution submitted to the City Council.
Supporters of having a commission study the city’s 114-year-old form of government thought such a review was triggered when voters approved two questions on the Nov. 3 election ballot.
One question, approved by a 4-1 margin, called for establishment of a commission with powers to recommend changes in the the form of government.
The other question was the election of nine commissioners.
But a state official said in February the question voters approved was placed on the ballot improperly.
In order for the commission to be valid under state law, the question should have been placed on the ballot with a petition signed by 15 percent of the city’s registered voters.
But the question was put there by vote of the City Council, which City Clerk Susan M. Egan said was the method she was advised to use in a conversation with the state secretary of state’s office last year.
The special legislation would make the commission valid and autonomous under state law.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2010 : 9:35:33 PM
|
I think you mean 44 people ran because the commission has nine members. My understanding is Holyoke has more issues than we do. I agree with you about the Patrick Administration.
What a joke.....the question was put on the ballot by advise from the state....... then the state says it was put on improperly? it is the state that needs to correct this by special legislation and soon. |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2010 : 8:31:06 PM
|
| Did anyone go to/hear anything about the last charter review meeting? Did anyone speak? I believe they allowed public comment for their past meeting. I was just wondering what was said, if anything was said at all, by the public and the commission. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2010 : 10:50:15 AM
|
| Any news on the legality of the Charter Commission? |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2010 : 10:23:42 PM
|
I just got off the phone with someone who was at the meeting, I won't say if it was a Commission member or not [;. Apparently, Stat Smith showed up and said things are progressing at the State House to get the error fixed.
I was also told that some sparks flew tonight between some people. I'll tell you what I heard in the morning...I'm going to bed!
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2010 : 06:36:50 AM
|
| Thanks, I'll look forward to you update. |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2010 : 3:11:28 PM
|
This is what I heard. If anyone heard differently please post what you heard.
Two people spoke at the meeting: David Floode and Michael Lozzie. Mr. Floode's comments were basically saying that he wanted a modern charter first and that a lot of other changes should be made by the voters (such as a manager or a mayor, things along those lines).
Mr. Lozzie then spoke about a few things. He thought the elected officials should get paid something, he was against two other items (I forget what they were) and he was staunchly opposed to the 4 year term for the Mayor. His reasoning is that the people voted on this back in 2000 or 2002 and that it shouldn’t even be brought up. He said if it passes as is he would tell everyone about what happened and to vote no on this charter, for the fact that the Commission was ignoring the voters. I guess many on the Commission took offense to that. When the Commission was discussing it a few members made indirect references to/about him and Ms. Martin-Long said directly to him she did not take threats lightly. Mr. Lozzie shouted right back from the audience saying he wasn’t threatening anyone.
Would have loved to see that on the TV! But this is what I was told please feel free to amend anything I may be off on or not clear on.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Charter Review
