another recall attempt in precinct 6 - which precinct will it be tomorrow?

August 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm | In barnstable, barnstable town council, cape cod, capeCOG, centerville, council president janet joakim, hyannis, janet joakim, janet swain joakim, municpal politics |
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 15, 2008
It is discouraging and disheartening after seven years of dedicated service to our town to be living through yet another recall attempt initiated by someone who doesn’t live in my precinct, who has a personal grudge and vendetta against me, my children, my husband and family — and is someone whom I have never met.

In addition to the woman who initiated the recall, the effort is being organized, conducted and managed via a website/blog that operates solely on the assumption that every aspect of our town government is corrupt and most who are associated with any of its successes or failures are also corrupt.

I was recently contacted by someone who pointed out several instances of racial, ethnic, anti-Semitic and sexist slurs that are used constantly by the author of this website/blog, who is also the leader of the group known as COG, to incite its base.

This group seems to operate on the fuel of hate, distrust and a darkness that is in some ways sad and in other ways frightening. And, for two years they have had their sights on me, and, for over a year they have had their sights on my daughters, my husband, my brother and others in my family.

The latest recall petition that is being carried on clipboards from door to door in my neighborhood gives two reasons for trying to remove me from office. The first is the statement that lays the blame on me solely for the resignation of the zoning board of appeals. This was a decision by a board made before we could discuss their issues. This was a disappointment for all involved. Their resignation was a missed opportunity for a conversation, and a missed opportunity to work together to identify problems and find solutions. I cannot accept responsibility for something that I knew nothing about.

Let me make it perfectly clear that despite what those who are running this recall claim, I did not and could not manipulate our ZBA. The actions they have accused me of are not possible with the limited power given to a council president. I did nothing more than speak out against a project that would have created a nightmare for all of us who use rt 28 between Cotuit and Hyannis. I did not speak out against this project because of any family interest in any other local business. Those stories and accusations are simply not true. (see more about the project here)

Again, the decision to resign, made by six members of the ZBA was their decision and was done, apparently, because they were listening to gossip and inuendo about what MIGHT happen at an upcoming town council meeting. Their concerns would have been allayed if any one of them had picked up the phone. But, the resignation was designed and detailed outside of a public meeting, so there was no opportunity to discuss it first.

The second reason on their recall petition is based on my vote regarding the split tax, the perennial reason the COG group uses for these efforts. Despite the numbers given by the petitioners, the truth is as follows:

* I voted in favor of the split the first year, not against it.

* The second year the Council was given information that showed that the savings to the people in my precinct from the split tax, was projected to be approximately $26 while the cost to the average small business would be $500. Considering the efforts our Town Council had initiated to create a downtown growth incentive zone to encourage new, local businesses to come to our town and not discourage them - the savings didn’t outweigh the costs. That was a decision based on many hours of research.

* The Town Council takes a vote on the split tax each year. Each year we are given new figures and information and some of us consider the impact on our local small businesses vs. the savings to our residents. If at any given year the numbers and circumstances change and it looks like our commercial base has grown enough to create a significant saving I would, and I would advocate my fellow councilors to, vote in favor of the split tax.

* What is not mentioned by the petitioners and rarely discussed in newspapers stories about this issue is that I voted for the residential exemption all three years and actually debated in favor of its passage. This is the reason that the people in our precinct have seen an average REDUCTION of $500 on their property tax bills consistently for each of these three years. This is where we find our savings. This is a savings that we deserve and I intend to continue to fight for and support this exemption.

I encourage anyone in my own precinct who might have issue with my representation as their town councilor, to please give me the opportunity to address that issue. Call me, email me — talk to me. I have offered to take part in neighborhood meetings and that offer still stands. I want to work with my constituents. I understand times are difficult –with two kids in college my family feels it too.

Working together, we can find solutions to some of our neighborhood issues and municipal challenges. Before signing a recall petition to remove me — or any other councilor — from office, please give us an opportunity to work with you on your problems.

Personally, this ongoing recall attempt has been exceptionally hard on me and on my family. I care about my job as a councilor, and believe that everything I have done to this point has been in the best interest of the residents of my precinct balanced with the best for our town overall.

That a group from outside of my precinct’s neighborhoods with a personal grudge and vendetta based on disagreements with a few of my votes might use this process as their latest tool to punish and harass is a dangerous precedent and is something that should make us all stand up and take notice.

Janet Joakim

Janetjoakim@aol.com 508-420-2153

See related stories and discussions here:

http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15753&Itemid=45

http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15754&Itemid=93

http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15767&Itemid=30

http://sevenvillagesblog.com/2008/07/25/the-zba-issue-in-black-and-white/

20 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Move to Florida.

    Comment by Anonymous — August 16, 2008 #

  2. LOL! now Paul Gauvin is leaving messages on blogs!

    Comment by Anonymous — August 16, 2008 #

  3. the florida comment IP maps to an interesting location

    Comment by JSJ — August 16, 2008 #

  4. You are so full of #$*& Joakim.

    (this post was altered to eliminate profanity)

    Comment by Anonymous — August 16, 2008 #

  5. why don’t you grow up? I have never seen a “politician” behave like such petulant child

    Comment by Anonymous — August 16, 2008 #

  6. It is so sad to have to deal with so much hate in this job. I pray for your sad and angry soul.

    Comment by JSJ — August 17, 2008 #

  7. Janet,
    It is so important for you to show your readers exactly what language and hate-speak these people use regularly. Link to the cached pages because I’ll bet my last wooden nickel that Lopez and friends will start scrubbing their blogs of type of language and labels you refer to in your post!

    Comment by Anonymous — August 17, 2008 #

  8. here are two examples (if they “disappear” I will post the cached pages):

    http://www.capecog.com/capecog/2008/06/more-examples-of-barnstables-douche-bag-queen-and-her-merry-band-of-corrupt-barnstable-town-hall-bastards-bribery-tax-deflation-for-pals-and-tax-inflation-for-us.html

    http://www.capecog.com/capecog/2008/08/wile-e-weil-the-all-american-city-schyster-and-a-coyote-in-drag.html

    Comment by JSJ — August 17, 2008 #

  9. Please explain the relevance of homeowner’s property tax savings using the Hyannis Fire District split tax rates to the $26 split tax saving in Precinct 6 outlined in capecog’s post.

    Comment by T.T. — August 17, 2008 #

  10. Please put all of the links I sent you by email, please. You have to show who these people are and what kind of labels they use every day.

    Comment by Anonymous — August 17, 2008 #

  11. T.T. -
    I haven’t read Lopez’s blog and don’t plan to.
    Can you be specific.
    If you send me an email with the specific question, I will get you the answer tomorrow and post it up on this blog.
    Thanks
    jj

    Comment by JSJ — August 17, 2008 #

  12. Anonymous - re: your email.
    I know what you are asking me to do, but with what little I have read, I am worried about sharing in responsiblities for libelous statements if I link to those posts.
    That is why I password protected and hid that page on this blog with all of their copies examples of posts etc.

    One of those blogs you had in the links is a blog I am not interested in at all.

    jj

    Comment by JSJ — August 17, 2008 #

  13. Time for someone to tell the truth about who this woman really is and what kind of damage she has done to others as well as you.

    Comment by Anonymous — August 17, 2008 #

  14. Janet, show people the libel and make some kind of disclaimer.

    Comment by Anonymous — August 17, 2008 #

  15. Where do I get a sign to put in my yard?

    Comment by Anonymous — August 18, 2008 #

  16. There is no way the letter from the ZBA didn’t violate the open meeting law.

    If they discussed the letter or even more important its intent which was to declare their joint resignation, even two or three at a time and made a decision that involved a quorum –“corporal convening”- they violated the open meeting law - . If they agreed to sign or signed the letter before the meeting - they violated the open meeting law by deliberating.

    Here are some parts that might be helpful from: http://www.mass.gov/Deas/docs/laws_information/open_meeting_manual.pdf

    “Corporal convening” is a gathering of a quorum of members of the governmental body or “corpus,” whether in person or otherwise. G.L. c. 39, sec. 23A. Conducting discussions or exchanging views or comments, among the members of a body, on “” if a quorum is involved in the exchange, whether face to face, by telephone, by “e-mail,” and whether all at once, or by a series of communications intended to be shared with a quorum.

    Deliberation” is a “verbal exchange between a quorum of members of a governmental body attempting to arrive at a decision on any public matter.” G.L. c. 39, sec. 23A. See District Attorney v. Selectmen of Middleborough, 395 Mass. 629 (1985). Interviews and sharing information at a meeting is deliberation. Gerstein v. Superintendent Search Screening Committee, 405 Mass. 465 (1989); Nigro v. Conservation Commission of Canton, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 433 (1984). A decision may be merely a recommendation or report to others who may make the ultimate decision to act. Nigro v. Conservation Commission of Canton, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 433 (1984).

    Discussions after a lawful meeting on the matter usually do not require the involvement of a quorum because the quorum has acted at the meeting. Such discussions are not prohibited, so long as no new matters (those not included in the completed meeting) are raised. See Yaro v. Board of Appeals of Newbury-port, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 587 (1980); J. & C. Homes, Inc. v. Planning Board of Groton, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 123 (1979). Distributing material to be reviewed individually is not deliberation, and may occur without meeting; exchanging views among a quorum about the materials is deliberation, and may occur only at a meeting.

    It is not a meeting within meaning of the Open Meeting Law if a gathering is merely a “chance meeting” (i.e., unintentional and unplanned) or “social meeting” (not designed as a business meeting) even though matters relating to official business are discussed, “so long as no final agreement is reached.” G.L. c. 39, sec. 23B, lines 79-81. However, “no chance meeting or social meeting shall be used” to circumvent “the spirit or requirements of” the Open Meeting Law. G.L. c. 39, sec. 23B, lines 81-84.

    Comment by Anonymous — August 21, 2008 #

  17. What makes you think they met as a quorum. Maybe three talked amongst themselves, and those three independently to others.

    They all could have made independent decisions to resign and let each other know one on one.

    The quorum idea is your assumption, and you know what A S S U M E leads to.

    Comment by T.T. — August 22, 2008 #

  18. is TT Taryn Thoman i wonder?

    Comment by Anonymous — August 24, 2008 #

  19. would that be a ‘witch doctor?’

    Comment by Anonymous — August 29, 2008 #

  20. What local “activist” petition carrier losing charter commission candidate and soldier for gary lopez’s spouse was arraigned this week?
    http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/NEWS/809040310/-1/NEWS06

    scroll to the bottom of the page -

    who is next?

    Comment by Anonymous — September 6, 2008 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.