See 5:30 update below:Original Post (very early this morning): So could somebody please buy Dave Keenan's chalet, so that he can afford to buy Awad/Hubley's Amherst condo, so that he can maintain his residency, so that he can run for the Select Board seat vacated by X-Czar Awad?
UPDATE: 5:30 PM. Sorry folks I have not been as attentive as usual (dare I use the term anal?) because my Comcast modem at home died last night and will not be replaced until tomorrow sometime between 11 am and 1:00 pm (damn, they got it down to just a two hour window). But anyway.
Here is the link to the Amherst Bulletin article (expanded from the original Gazette):
Death To Kelley (and his little dog too)
Neil makes a very good point in 'Comments' on yesterday's post that Ms. Awad was most certainly told by police experts what the definition of "stalking" is and "physical threats" and obviously her evidence was laughable, yet she knowingly made the horrendous charge anyway--in a very public forum!
12 comments:
He doesn't need to own property to claim residency. All he needs to do is say "I live in Amherst". Thats it.
Are you joking? I don't think you have to own a house to establish residency. In David's case, he owns a house which he is selling. As long as he takes up another Amherst residence after it's sold, whether he owns the new residence or not, he will have met all the requirements.
David seems like a nice man but not always entirely on the ball. I take it the joices have been fixed. The election results last time around don't give me cause to believe he has a lot of voter support.
I'm still thinking about BenEzra and Weiss' outrageous demonizing, bad governance judgment, and wasting valuable time of the policy board.
This issue arose, in part, due to ambiguity of what the residency requirement for office is. You'd think they'd spend time addressing and resolving the ambiguity rather than proposing a "do nothing" attack resolution repleat with slander about "stalkers" (their words) and "physical threats" (their words).
Does anyone know why it was necessary to require David and the other candidate to resubmit their papers? Could the board not have decided that their work was satisfactory and ask them to come in and initial the paperwork with the new date affixed?
I am one person who thinks that the election should be scheduled in November in order to maximize voter turnout. It is unclear why the town clerk must set-up two elections rather than one, two sign inx, two ballots, etc. But in the interest of democracy, scheduling it when the maximum number of people are likely to participate seems like a natural choice. What are the countervailing considerations?
State election law requires you to submit nomination forms for each election. If the date changes then you need to fill out new papers and collect new signatures. No one in Amherst has the authority to change this.
Election law concerning nomination papers is extremley strict. Any stray marks or notations can get your entire sheet invalidated.
The arguments against the move are pretty simple. Extra work for the town clerk has been mentioned but there are a couple that are much more important in my opinion.
1) The Select Board will be 20% short of its required members. Can you imagine if the President and certain members of congress decided to postpone elections with 20% of Congressional seats vacant, while they worked on the budget for the nation and other legislative activities. The people of America would take to the streets in protest.
2) As some have suggested this could amount to election tampering, and the town could have opened itself to a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Hayden and/or Mr. Keenan.
3) Mr. Weiss said the reason to change the date was a good faith agreement with Judge Garrity. However, when candidates submit nomination papers, they are in essence signing a contract to follow all laws and rules for the election. The town by accepting the nomination forms also promises to abide by the rules and laws governing elections. By changing the election date I would argue that Mr. Weiss violated a good faith agreement with Mr. Hayden and Mr. Keenan. The question you have to ask is, is an agreement made 30+ years ago, by another Select Board, in closed chambers (which means there is no record other than personal memories) worth more than an agreement made in the present, by the current Select Board?
4) Of course there are then the theories that there are elements in town that needed more time to find a candidate.
Choose your favorite reason but each of these should be strong enough arguments to make Mr. Weiss and Ms. Stein look like wishy-washy members of the Select Board, quivering in fear at the threat of a lawsuit.
This was ad hoc decisionmaking at its most ad hoc. All the variables were important, including which individuals were filing papers.
Do we really think this issue about the 35 year old agreement would have come up if Vince had his candidate up and running?
Rich Morse
You make a good point. Citing this "good-faith" agreement and at the same time, fear of a lawsuit, as the two compelling reasons for changing the date doesn't leave much room for a rational debate on the merits.
The issue Vince put on the table is at least in part a red-herring. I'll illustrate. Let's say 10% of registered voters in Amherst go to the Cape in August. Does the town then have a obligation to NOT schedule an election in August? I don't think so, I don't think there is any obligation to accommodate voters in that way.
If a voter chooses to register in Amherst as opposed to where they live at other times, they do so knowing that most elections will be scheduled in November and that special elections can be scheduled at any time.
That said, I think it is in the best interest of democracy to schedule elections on election day in November unless the timing poses a substantive issue. I do not consider the period between September and November a substantive issue with regard to the Select Board position but I would like to hear from the board on that.
Finally, I'd like to understand the rationale that led the Select Board to set the September date, rather than the November date, in the first place. My thought is that the Town Clerk, concerned about managing it, told the Town Manager that it couldn't be done and that then Town Manager convinced the Select Board to go along. If that is the case, then I will add this incident to my list of complaints about this town manager's competence.
Luckily Dave wasn't outside gardening when you took that photo!
Yeah, I'm wondering now if Mr. Hayden is going to demand equal time and have me post a photo of his house (but I'll give him advance notice so he can mow the lawn and sweep the porch)
...so that he can maintain his residency, so that he can run for the Select Board seat vacated by X-Czar Awad?
Wait, you left out...so he can resign in a fit of pique and cost the taxpayers 20 grand, like last time.
Surely, we can do better than that wingnut.
How exactly is what Larry did and what the Valley Advocate does with other politicians? So in other words, the Amherst High & Mighty demand that no one ever question anything any of them do.
Dave does not actually own the house - he sold it last year.
Dave doesn't even own a shirt, according to the photo the Gazzette ran last fall;-)
Post a Comment