Shutesbury: Where the welcome sign is not the only thing frayed
The back-and-forth in the sad saga of the Shutesbury library vote is enough to give an observer whiplash.
With the June 30 deadline looming for the town to accept a $2.1 million state grant, the Supreme Judicial Court last week refused to hear an expedited appeal of Judge Rup's decisive decision to throw out two previously counted yes votes of attorney Michael Pill's grown children thus bringing the (never say) final vote to 522 "no" to 520 "yes" in the $1.4 million override request required to match the state grant.
Originally library proponents had filed suit against the Board of Registrars requesting the court, "Order the defendant Board of Registrars not to count the votes of Richard and Joan Paczkowski, or in the alternative if the Paczkowski votes are to be counted, then order the defendant Board of Registrars to count the vote of Christopher Buck." Either of those two alternatives would have changed the outcome of the library vote from a failure to passing.
Instead Judge Mary-Lou Rup not only upheld the Board of Registrars decision to allow the challenged Paczkowski votes but then she went a step further and negated the votes of Shoshana Holzberg-Pill, and Jacob Holzberg-Pill. To date the only negated vote that now seems unchallenged is that of Christopher Buck, who signed a legal document (license) in Kentucky, where he has been employed full-time for the previous two years, clearly stating Kentucky is his sole legal domicile for voting.
Since town attorney MacNicol is now being so accommodating there's probably enough time for "direct appellate review" by the appeals court of Judge Rup's decision, which most experts believe will be upheld. By then, however, the June 30 deadline will be at hand and no compromise possible between the opposing sides to get a piece of the $2.1 million state grant.
The picturesque M.N. Spear Memorial Library
The year (1923) Babe Ruth broke the record for all-or-nothing home runs, he also lead the league in strikeouts. Those who fail to learn from history...
Once the lawyers get involved.............See Charles Dickens' novel "Bleak House".
ReplyDeleteok, will this be the final no?
ReplyDeleteYes!
ReplyDeleteSeems to be not the last No~seems that they may just go ahead and build it anyway~after all they have the town's lawyer, and the town administration in their back pocket!
ReplyDeleteIf I understand "One last time, into the fray," Attorney Pill and his Shutesbury library fanatic clients (Democratic Party Officials) are desperately trying to find a way to bribe the Court of Appeals into reversing Judge Rups' decision whereby by she disallowed the unlawful votes of Pill's two non-resident adult children. Two Pill-related questions: 1) Do you have any idea how much money it costs to bribe a Massachusetts Court of Appeals judge? And 2) will Shutesbury voters be asked to vote again on whether Shutesbury tax dollars should be allocated to bribe said Court of Appeals?
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:03 comments sound a tad libelous to me. I'd watch out Larry. And, just so you and your readers know, I am not a library supporter. At least not the size that is presently on the table.
ReplyDeleteA tad edgy of course but obviously satire, which is protected speech.
ReplyDeleteLarry, I did not take it as satire at all.
ReplyDeleteNeither did Jerry Falwell, but the Supreme Court agreed with Larry Flynt.
ReplyDeleteIf Anon 9:05 (and 10:25) is telling the truth, "And, just so you and your readers know, I am not a library supporter," I'll eat Pill's two non-resident adult children's unlawful votes. She/he doth protest such silliness (not libelous) too much!
ReplyDeleteThis is Anon 9:05. I'll say again, I am NOT a new library supporter - at least not one of the size and scope presented so far. I do not even live in Shutesbury - I live in Amherst. My hope is now and has been that the two sides get together and try to come up with a compromise. It seems clear that the town needs a new library - just not a Taj Mahal library! A more modest one, that the town can afford. One would think that adults can come together and compromise, for the good of the town and the folks living in the town. I still have hope that in the end the good people of Shutesbury will be able to come together. Perhaps not any time soon but maybe later, after the bad feelings have abated.
ReplyDeleteThe two sides will never get together as long as the YES people keep going to court. I'm afraid the bad feelings will not go away ant time soon. It's too bad.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem that people from both sides of the library issue will never compromise. I too, hope this will change over time. But when I remember all the actions that took place throughout the campaign, it would be hard for me to trust the people pushing for a larger than necessary library for our small town of Shutesbury. Why no compromise? What are the hidden agendas? On a more positive twist, why not include a senior center and post office in the new library plans? I realize this would never fly, but it's nice to dream.
ReplyDelete