Last year a law was passed that prohibits changes to the intent of Petition Warrant Articles submitted to the ballot. As in years passed, when the Select Board disagrees with the concerns of citizens, who took the time to properly exercise their rights for changes, warrants have been bastardized at Deliberative completely changing what their actual intent was. Despite the law, it has happened again this year. So much for a fair and just election in Winchester, once again the BOS is not willing to relinquish their stranglehold on this town.
16 comments:
Last year a law was passed that prohibits changes to the intent of Petition Warrant Articles submitted to the ballot.
Do you know what the RSA is that protects petition warrant articles? I can not find it.
RSA 39:3, which prohibits the selectmen from altering or changing petitioned warrant articles. The statute requires the selectmen to insert the petitioned article in the warrant “with only such minor textual changes as may be required.” “Minor textual changes” most likely refer to the selectmen putting the petition in the form of a question. Perhaps it includes correcting spelling or grammar. It certainly doesn’t include making changes in the substance of the article. But this prohibition applies only to the authority of the selectmen.
Its easy to see that the legal advice that we pay for, is really only geared toward making the town hall happy.
So Henry were you sleeping in the back of the hall or did you drop the ball completely in regards to several warrants that according to law were illegally changed?
When can a town meeting moderator refuse to accept a motion to amend a warrant article?
A. Once again, RSA 39:2 comes in to play. Since it invalidates any action taken at the meeting whose subject was not stated in the warrant, the moderator can refuse to accept an amendment that changes or is in some way not germane to the subject matter of the article as posted in the warrant.
Adding to the Ethics Law adopted by the town is not the same as keeping the current rules now is it?
Nor is asking the town whether they want to vote for a road agent the same as keeping the current one.,
Warrant article #11 and #17 both are also illegal as they raise the money amounts by more than the 10% allowed under the law. Guess Barton Mayer and Henry were both day dreaming.
to bak up my statements above and I quote:
RSA 32:18
"Limitation of Appropriations. In an official ballot referendum municipality electing this subdivision, the recommendation of the budget committee made for the first session of the meeting shall be the amount appropriated. In any other municipality electing this subdivision, or any district wholly within a town electing this subdivision, the total amount appropriated at any annual meeting shall not exceed by more than 10 percent the total amount recommended by the budget committee for such meeting. [In official ballot referendum municipalities, the recommendation of the budget committee made for the first session of the meeting shall be used for determining the 10 percent limitation.] These totals shall include appropriations contained in special warrant articles. Money may be raised and appropriated for purposes included in the budget or in the warrant and not recommended by the budget committee, but not to an amount which would increase the total appropriations by more than the 10 percent allowed under this paragraph."
Our BOS, moderator and legal council all think most of us are stupid and don't have an inkling as to what is right and legal and will sweep anything through as fast as they can to try and confuse as many as they can to get what they want. The deliberative session was once again a big joke, utter confusion and all orchestrated by the usual players. Hopefully, though I doubt it, none of the spending warrants pass and they'll have to pull the money out of their collective a$$es to cover what they are short from last year.
i Believe this is the RSA that changes Petition Warrant Articles.
TITLE III
TOWNS, CITIES, VILLAGE DISTRICTS, AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES
CHAPTER 40
GOVERNMENT OF TOWN MEETING
Optional Form of Meeting--Official Ballot Referenda
Section 40:13
40:13 Use of Official Ballot. – V. The first session of the meeting, governed by the provisions of RSA 40:4, 40:4-a, 40:4-b, 40:4-f, and 40:6-40:10, shall consist of explanation, discussion, and debate of each warrant article. A vote to restrict reconsideration shall be deemed to prohibit any further action on the restricted article until the second session, and RSA 40:10, II shall not apply. Warrant articles may be amended at the first session, subject to the following limitations:
(a) Warrant articles whose wording is prescribed by law shall not be amended.
(b) Warrant articles that are amended shall be placed on the official ballot for a final vote on the main motion, as amended.
(c) No warrant article shall be amended to eliminate the subject matter of the article. An amendment that changes the dollar amount of an appropriation in a warrant article shall not be deemed to violate this subparagraph.
The police officer grant is another one! It's illegal and they are trying to cover their asses with this warrant article!
Even the State's Attorney General said that it is illegal and should be accepted by the town in order to rectify the situation.
So, what happens if it doesn't pass during elections? Opps?
What if all of the money issues pass? It's exceeds the 10%. Opps?
Yes, under RSA 40:13 a petitioned warrant for a sum of money can be changed at deliberative; but you are missing the point as RSA 32:18 clearly states " but not to an amount which would increase the total appropriations by more than the 10 percent allowed under this paragraph."
No one is saying it could not be done, but not by more than 10% which is the case here which is illegal, period.
39:3 has been around forever and it just allows clerical cleaning up of petitioned articles,before they go yo,deliberative. It has nothing to do with amending articles at deliberative. The 10% rule applies to the entire bidgeted amount, not individual articles.
We've moved on from RAS 39:3 and were discussing RSA 32:18. The fact that your statements are incorrect are a testament to you not have read all of the comments above. As pointed out above and quoted word for word from the statute, these totals shall include appropriations contained in special warrant articles. Did you miss that? It goes on to state, "Money may be raised and appropriated for purposes included in the budget or in the warrant and not recommended by the budget committee, but not to an amount which would increase the total appropriations by more than the 10 percent allowed under the statute".
Did you miss that too?
The selectmen have given us a warrant article ballot sheet that is crafted so that we wont know what we are voting on in some cases. Lets turn the tide and we will see how smart thy really are. VOTE--Budget Committee-Robert Davis--Planning Board-Brian Moser--Moderator-William Kelly,Jr--Vote YES on article#2 and #24--Vote NO on all the rest and let these smarties figure out how to make things work.
Think its possible that the reason that Sherm and Ken are running for selectmen again is to make sure there friend Theresa has an easy time of sliding into the chiefs job when Gary leaves?
Sadly I dont think Theresa will get the chiefs job her record is to clean, You need to remember Wincher PD upper management is made up of Officers Fired or in big trouble from other towns.
Didn't Theresa get fired from here by chief Phillips for conduct unbecoming or some other related matter after she rolled her cruiser?
I don't think putting her in charge would be such a good idea nor Roberts either. Never seen a police force with so many problems from the chief down, only in Winchester.
Post a Comment