Recall Petition Warrant Articles
Extracted from the Norfolknet Notes.

This page contains the posts related to the two recall petition warrant articles that have appeared among the Norfolknet Notes. They are also logged in the archives as usual.
You can post your own notes by e-mailing them to notes@norfolknet.com.

  • 3/18  9:58pm   I spent Sunday studying the recall petition warrant articles. The two are actually very similar, with only three substantial points of divergence: Given a typical voter participation of 30% (1999 town election), the overall effect of the differences is to make successful recalls much more difficult using the second, ``clearly stated reasons'' language. Those of you who wish to familiarize yourselves with the proposals can read the two submitted articles side-by-side, with my annotations, on this page. - Wm.

  • 3/18  10:12pm   Speaking of the recall petitions, it was time to move them to their own page. New posts on the topic will still show up here in Notes, and will be migrated as volume dicates.

  • 3/18  9:27am   A quick clarification. I am not a supporter of the original petition -- ie. I did not sign it. In fact, I've only heard descriptions of the two petitions and seen the selectmen's discussions on the two competing warrant articles. I'm hoping to see both soon so I can educate myself more on the specifics. At a high level I think: 1) giving citizen's the right to recall elected officials is a positive thing, and 2) any limitations on the scope of recalls should be objectively judgeable, and have a defendable purpose. The limitations Mr. Chipman seeks to place on our ability to remove errant elected officials do not, in my opinion meet the standard of being objectively judgeable (who judges "lack of fitness?"). It also doesn't seem to stem from a purpose I find defendable. As I understand it from PA's posts and from statements made at the Board of Selectmen's meetings on this topic, the purpose of Mr. Chipman's warrant article is to limit the exposure that elected officials have to being removed from office if the majority of the voters want that person removed. That doesn't sound to me like a goal that strengthens accountability or democracy in this town. A question I have about the first warrant article is will the recall be an expression of the majority will of the voters? I don't know enough about the specifics of the first one to know if it provides for this. If not, it needs modification, but not a limiting of the reasons for removal.
    I must apologize for my gaffe: calling the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee the Zoning Board of Appeals. That said, I stand by the assertion. It seemed obvious to this outsider that the conflict of interest laws were darn close to violated. I'm no lawyer, but if the law prohibits BOH members from "taking any type of official action that could create an appearance of impropriety, or acting in a manner which could cause an impartial observer to believe that your actions are tainted with bias or favoritism," then this situation (removing an appointee for no clearly stated reason and inserting a running mate of one of the board members) seemed to me to be legally dubious. Like I said though -- I'm not a lawyer.
    Town government is not like the federal government so we shouldn't look to the actions of the President for guidance. One thought: we can impeach a president. And we all know how useful the specificty of the grounds for impeachment ("high Crimes and Misdemeanors") proved to be. :-) Wouldn't it have been nice if the grounds for removal were simply that the majority of voters wanted him removed (not sure how that would have turned out, but it would have saved us a lot of time).
    And as for how well the BOH is working together these past few months: that's swell if everyone agrees that this is the case. I haven't heard anything about the BOH since the abovementioned case, so that must be a good sign. But, it doesn't change the facts of the situation I refer to. Another interpretation of the silence on the BOH is that Mr. Gilbert has decided that fighting the whims of the other two members is fruitless.
    - DAF

  • 3/18  12:41am   This recall stuff is quite fascinating [ . . . ]. I have to admit though, that I have trouble believing (and this is my own opinion) in or with PA's credibility on the intent of the "second" recall petition. Here's why . . . the 3/12 post PA alerted the readers of this board to "If anyone saw Globe West yesterday, they has an article about a recall petition that is headed for Town Meeting". And then PA goes on to write "There is also another petition that has clearly defined language, which would be the lesser of two evils. Hopefully we will not be subjected to either one".
    A post on 3/14 PA states, "I appreciate you letting me post my thoughts and opinions on the recall petition subject over the past couple of days, as it is something I feel very strongly about. Yesterday you referenced the second petition that Peter S. Chipman initiated. That is the petition I signed, and was subsequently asked to appear in front of our selectmen to discuss." I find this statement fascinating where two days before PA was hoping that "we will not be subjected to either one" yet presents the appearance that he or she now fully understands the language and signs the petition (but he said he was not a lawyer 3/14 post again) within two days and has become an expert on the petition enough so to appear in front of the selectmen!!??
    Sorry, but I don't buy this . . . . there seems to be conflict here where someone posing as a well meaning citizen has appearance of knowing or having the intimate working knowledge and actual or underlying or hidden intent of the "second" recall petition.
    With all the above said, I pose two situations to PA (and would appreciate a comment from DAF) related to a recall. As for conflicts of interest as presented in the DAF post, the Conflict of Interest Laws are specific, but vague enough where a financial gain is one of many criteria that could be a conflict of interest. What about avoiding a fine or enforcement? If an elected official is on a board and knowingly stalls, delays, or impedes enforcement by the board on which this person sits is this a conflict of interest? No one is being hurt financially or physically, but the rest of the public is required to abide by the laws? My second question is if an elected official outright portrays himself as something else during the campaign period and then once elected goes off and does what ever he or she wants to do. Is this grounds for a recall under the state statutes or legal action? Or is this a matter that should be turned over to the Attorney General's Office?
    I do have a comment regarding the post by "concerned citizen" about town employees being trained in CPR. It seems that for Selectman McFeeley to have to respond to a question that is on this board raises a few points that leave me wondering. According to "concerned citizen" the request was raised over one and one half years ago, why does it take this sort of post for something to be done. In my own opinion, the responsibility falls on the board of selectmen, not the fire department. A request that goes unanswered over one year ago is unacceptable. For Selectman McFeely to dump it back on the "concerned citizen" and say "When an incorrect statement is made by someone, it is often difficult to completely erase it from our memory. We have to be careful about what we say. Otherwise, our credibility suffers." Sorry, but in my opinion, "the credibility" went out the window with the lack of action by the selectmen over a year ago.
    Now I know that someone will jump all over me and say why don't you get involved? I have and did, in the past, but I value my sanity more than having to deal some of the egos elected in this town.
    Thanks for the soapbox. - AW

  • 3/18  12:29am   To DAF: It's great to finally hear from a supporter of the initial recall petition!! The second recall petition was written using language from existing, approved recall petitions adopted from other towns, and which were initially approved from the AG's office, (and for good reason.)   [ Webmaster's note: we were informed that the petitions are both based on the state-recommented template text, and both versions have been adopted in various communities across the state - Wm. ]
    As far as appointees being removed, we just saw all of Clinton's appointees make way for Bush's appointees [ . . . ]. When new people come along, new appointees come along. Your facts are not entirely correct, though. The Board of Health did not appoint someone to the ZBA, they appointed someone to the Zoning-By-Law Study Committee, and to the Animal Advisory's Agent spot. Totally different positions.
    As far as the Board of Health, since John Hurley has come along, this board has started conducting more meetings (twice monthly now, as opposed to once a month) and all members and agents seem to work together quite well. The in-fighting has been replaced by what appears to be a cohesive unit, and one that has even taken their show on the road, visiting local establishments to check on smoking regs being followed, etc. This board has never been better, for they now all work together. Thanks for your opinion! - PA

  • 3/16  11:49pm   We received some inquiries about the appropriateness of the ``inflammatory language'' of DAF's post, especially in light of us having toned down the vehemence of some messages in the past, and whether this indicates a loss of objectivity on our part.
    DAF's entire point was that ``dishonesty'' is subjective, and a poor criterion to incorporate into law. Using an example, and clearly marked as such, he stated that in his opinion the explanations offered by the Board of Health as to their actions do not hold water. Yes, it was a personal opinion, but it was clearly marked as such, it was an integral and inseparable component of the comment, it was on-topic, it was about public figures in their official elected capacity, it was not rude nor offensive, and in context, was perfectly acceptable.
    For a broad overview of how we determine what is fit content, please see our Posting Guidelines page.  - Wm.
    [ Update: we were forwarded the actual language used in the article, which lists ``[ . . . ] the following reasons: lack of fitness; neglect of duties; corruption; misfeasance or violation of oath. Exercising discretion in voting or acting on matters before such office holder shall not constitute a reason for recall.'' - Wm. ]

  • 3/16  9:34am   I have to agree with Wm. The recall petition authored by Mr. Chipman adds less than nothing by requiring that elected officials can only be removed for "explicit actions indicating corrupt and dishonest behavior."  Those terms are completely subjective. What is "dishonest" behavior? In my view, when the Board of Health removed a long-standing, knowledgeable appointee to the Zoning Board of Appeals and placed one of the chairman's friends and Mr. Hurley's political ally in the spot, the reasons they gave were obviously dishonest. Others may see that differently. So, how do we judge whether or not this is grounds for a recall petition? And who judges? State law allows for the removal of "corrupt" officials already. Read Mass General Laws section 268A. In the case of the BOH, for instance, read this from the State Ethics Commission. So recalls aren't for legally provable removal. Recalls are for:
    • Strengthening popular control of government,
    • Allowing voters to correct electoral systems failures which are the product of a long ballot or the plurality election rule,
    • Reducing voter alienation,
    • Educating the electorate,
    • Encourages votes to approve constitutional and charter amendments lengthening the term of office of elected officers.
    This last point is one that I'd like to underline. Unlike some folks in town, I think having a knowledgeable resident in town government for a longer term is a positive thing. There is a depth and breadth of knowledge that comes with serving for a long time that cannot be duplicated when there is a switchout every couple of years. Look at your business. Why do you try to keep your best people? That said, if people are going to get entrenched in elected positions, we need a method for removing them mid-term in extreme cases where the elected official is no longer representing the will of the the townspeople as a whole.
    Lastly, I find it odd that people like Mr. Chipman, who run on the platform that town government needs to be more accountable to "the people" are now seeking to put limitations on their own accountability to their constituents. This is not just some zany idea by a lone crank out to get Mr. Chipman. Over half of the US States (and hundreds of municipalities) have constitutional or statutory provisions for the recall of elected officers.  - DAF

  • 3/14  10:52am   To the Wm., I appreciate you letting me post my thoughts and opinions on the recall petition subject over the past couple of days, as it is something I feel very strongly about. Yesterday you referenced the second petition that Peter S. Chipman initiated. That is the petition I signed, and was subsequently asked to appear in front of our selectmen to discuss. In your post today, you ask: "Should elected officials have a guarantee to a full term in office?" As I recall, the petition I signed had clearly defined language, indicating that an official may be removed from office for explicit actions indicating corrupt and dishonest behavior. The original petition had no such language whatsoever. Today in your post you asked: "What recourse can voters have?" Again, in the petition I signed there is clearly defined language stating what constitutes starting a recall election. That is not the case with the original petition.
    The initial recall petition would do nothing but stifle a system that is supposed to be based on democracy, and I'm fearful that if it goes forth, people will be discouraged from serving their town. Why bother expending valuable time and energy (and possibly money) to win an election when you can be removed for no clearly delineated reason? Again, I appreciate you letting me voice my opinions. I don't know why we haven't heard from supporters of the initial petition, for they were not represented in Globe West on Sunday, but they certainly deserve to have their opinion heard as well. - PA
    [ In principle an un-election is just as democratic as an election, since both simply carry out the will of the electorate. Losing a recall election is little different from losing the election proper; why bother with running at all if there is any chance of losing? What you are suggesting *is* a limited guarantee; it would become illegal to remove someone from office for reasons other than one of the listed offenses. My question is whether it is prudent of the voters to hand out such guarantees - Wm. ]
    To Wm: As I've stated all along, if we have to be subjected to recall petitions, they need to have some clearly defined language, otherwise Chairman X of the XYZ Board may be subject to a recall because he didn't give someone a variance, or he appointed someone to one committee and left someone else out. I'm no lawyer, but if the initial petition goes through, and someone who has been elected by the populace gets broomed for no serious infraction, there will be a lawsuit. [I]t would be nice for the author(s) of the initial petition to speak out. - PA
    [ Yes, and they could be subject to recall because of how they dress or how they conduct themselves on the televised meetings, or even because they changed the color of their tie, but none of these are very likely either. Just like with at-will hires in the workforce, if the post does not come with an expectation of permanence, there would be no cause for complaint about dismissal. If we trust the voters to make the right decision when electing someone, why not trust them to make the right decision about removing them? - Wm. ]

  • 3/13  8:53pm   Re: Recall Petitions: Sorry for all the parenthetical comments, but I'm quite interested in the principle of this issue, namely - how much control should voters have over their elected officials? Would an ``un-election'' be improper, (not illegal, mind you, but improper; the two are distinct) when an election itself is merely voter-granted empowerment? How would an un-election be different from a vote of confidence, which is a rather common occurrence in governance all around the world? Should elected officials have a guarantee to a full term in office? Should such protection be extended to non-elected public servants? How much autonomy ought an election delegate, and should it sanction deceit? What recourse can voters have (or should they have any) if an elected official eg. breaks a campaign promise (and violates one of the basic voter assumptions that got them elected in the first place)? What if we didn't think of it as a recall, but as a reaffirmation of continued trust (or lack thereof)?
    I guess I see this issue as one of voter rights. An established recall procedure would give disgruntled voters a recourse, and may well lead to less apathy and increased voter involvement. By limiting the methods and reasons by which officials are ultimately held accountable, I don't see how we, the voters benefit. A recall procedure that narrowly curtails the causes for which an elected person may be removed from office explicitly permits and protects all other transgressions, and is worse than no procedure at all. - Wm.

  • 3/13  2:37pm   To VR, PA, etc.: I think the more specific language is, the better. Far too many elected and appointed officials hide behind shadowy language. As far as I can see, the direct approach that has been going on for the last 2 - 3 years is a positive thing for the town. No one has "had to know someone" to get things done. Is it realisitic to keep the same people in the same positions for 20+ years? No successful corporation would do that; why should we? It's high time that people became involved in the election process instead of being ambivilent until an elected official does or says something that someone doesn't like. Recalling a person without reason, after they cared enough to take a stand and tried to make it work, sounds like a schoolyard bully making sure everything is done their way. - JD

  • 3/13  11:56am   To PA: It's not that the candidates aren't being asked to state their positions, it's more that the positions aired before the elections tend to consist of generalities. Typically *only* those already inside town politics know enough to ask the pointed questions about upcoming issues that would be really useful in making an informed decision. For the rest of us, it's not until a specific situation comes along, perhaps several months into someone's term, that we have a chance to understand the various implications for the town, currently with no available remedy.
    But speaking of being well-informed, I'd be interested in learning more about the two petitions . . . perhaps their supporters could post to this board? - VR

  • 3/13  11:07am   To VR: The time to learn when you can choose someone to better represent you is BEFORE the election, not after it. No one in Norfolk should ever state that they didn't know the issues, candidates, platforms, etc. because the information is out there. Between local papers covering the races, and the Candidates Night (which is aired several times by NCTV) any questions voters may have should be answered prior to going into the polls. If candidates aren't being asked to state their positions, that's not their fault, it's ours! As far as having a chance to recall an official, there is a second petition that came out in light of the original one that actually contains language specifying what constitutes offenses that would be worthy of a recall movement.- PA
    [ Gee, maybe I'm a cynic, but I read it as the second petition was out there solely to blunt the momentum behind the first; see the quotes to that effect in the Globe article. - Wm. ]

  • 3/13  9:36am   I'm not associated in any way with the recall petition, but in my view, establishing a recall process is not automatically negative. All it does is provide a mechanism for voters to either endorse or recall an elected town official. In our years in town, I've realized that candidates rarely have to state their position on key issues, usually because few people know enough to ask the right questions *before* the election. So residents typically cast their votes with very little information regarding the candidates' positions, and even less understanding of the boards and their responsibilities. Once a situation arises in which voters realize that an elected official supports a position that is harmful to their or the town's interests, shouldn't they have a chance to recall that official and replace him/her with someone who better represents them? - VR

  • 3/12  11:10pm   If anyone saw Globe West yesterday, they had an article about a recall petition that is headed for Town Meeting. This petition would allow only 200 signatures to get the ball rolling to oust local politicians who may have campaigned long and hard and received four to five times that many votes. There was no clear language in this petition stating what would constitute an offense that could cause elected politicians to be removed. If this goes forth to town meeting, do not support it, for it could spell the end of people volunteering their precious time and expertise (why would people bother getting involved if they could be removed for no reason?) There is also another petition that has clearly defined language, which would be the lesser of two evils. Hopefully we will not be subjected to either one. - PA
    [ What about the volunteers in appointed positions? - Wm. ]

    Home