One bad apple (or two)

Click to enlarge/read

So now we have not one but two flagrant violations of Mass General Law Ch. 40 Section 14. We purchased land without a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting and we are paying—if the deal goes through—over 25% of appraised value.

Previous post
note April 10 publication date of previous post (day Hubley/Awad became South Hadley residents)

A (bad) night at the opera.

My initial reaction to the banner in Amherst town center hyping the play “Our American Cousin” was not overly favorable (besides wondering why a Northampton affair gets subsidized space in Amherst).

For you non-history types, President Lincoln was watching it the night John Wilkes Booth placed a 44-caliber derringer just above his left ear and pulled the trigger. As a helpful reminder, the advertising flacks even placed a portrait of Lincoln on the banner.

Leaping from the private box about 11 feet to the stage Booth broke his leg. Unaware of the assassination, Dr. Samuel Mudd treated Booth’s injury the next day and now the term “your name is Mudd” denotes strong disapproval. As in, our current President may as well be ‘Mudd’.

Not just individuals, but an entire city can suffer the stigma as well. A generation of Americans blamed the city of Dallas for that awful day in late November 1963. And the assassination of his brother Bobby five years later in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel started the downward spiral of that once Grand establishment.

When I uploaded on Blogger the photo I snapped from my bicycle seat and then clicked on it to enlarge, I noticed the URL for the play.

Ahhh…so it’s not the original comedy as presented that nefarious night in Washington, D.C. Just an artistic interpretation of what could have transpired (immediately after the greatest President in US history was shot point blank in the brain).

Okay, I’ll still pass.

A sucker born...Especially in Amherst!

So of course Amherst Town Meeting, mimicking the spending habits of a drunken sailor, purchased the property on Main Street—two lots that suddenly went from $400,000 down to $270,000 when the professional appraisal (as opposed to the worried-about-his-job town assessor) came back this morning.

And if you look at the “historic” landscape now, it resembles something out of the ‘Wizard of Oz’--only the tornado deposited three tired old houses instead of just one.

Naturally Mr. Moderator (a highly-paid Amherst College employee, the same entity that donated two of the houses and paid the over $110-K moving costs to dump them on Main Street) dictated the deal only required a simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote that is REQUIRED anytime borrowing is involved.

And the suddenly revised motion clearly stated “appropriate $270,000 for the acquisition of said land, and to meet such appropriation, appropriate and transfer $81,000 from the Community Preservation Fund annual estimated revenues, with the additional $189,000 to be borrowed in anticipation of receipt of a grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

But even if the state comes through with a grant of $189,000 (that could take a year or more) and we “borrow” that amount in “anticipation” of the money eventually arriving, is that not still “borrowing”? If so, tonight’s vote required a two-thirds majority.

If I borrow ten bucks from you today and give you a post-dated check (and you assume I am a premiere businessman in operation for over 26 years and would not risk image damage by bouncing a $10 check), is that not still "borrowing"?

The Dog-and-Pony Show was pretty hilarious: they even Photoshopped in a ramshackle house painted purple to illustrate what could happen if we did not buy this property right now (“This special offer ends tonight. Call now with your credit card in hand as operators are standing by!”)

And they were sooooo cocky they did not even bother to have a Standing Vote or (written) Tally Vote, almost always required for borrowing (unless the voice vote is unanimous).

Yeah, I used “Point of Order!” to ask if the Town Attorney vetted this simply majority vote concept and was told “yes”. But then, this is the same Town Attorney who says it’s okay for Awad and Hubley to live in South Hadley and remain on as Amherst Town officials.

Hmmm…

D-Day. Decision, decision, decisions...

So today is the day—because as of today Ann Awad is, by her own hand, a resident of 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley. And thus, disqualified from her high-ranking Amherst elected Select board position (with its $300 annual salary).

The FDIC backed mortgage, signed on April 10 under pains and penalties of Federal Law, clearly states: “Borrower shall occupy, establish and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days after the execution of the Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least a year after the date of occupancy”

And my friends in the legal profession tell me that US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan frowns on bank fraud—even for a petty, egotistical reason such as this.

Tomorrow night Amherst Town Meeting will discuss spending $400,000 to preserve two Main Street lots, a stone’s throw from Miss Emily’s Homestead. Last week in a procedural move designed to enhance the probability of passage the motion passed by almost exactly a two-thirds vote.

So one or two votes (and Hubley and Awad always vote the same) could decide the difference on this important issue.

What you lookin at

2:00 PM (and it's HOT)

"Trailer for sale or rent..."

So yeah, when I picked up my Amherst Bulletin on Thursday and spotted the real estate ad for an “open house” at the Awad/Hubley Amherst condo today (Saturday from 1:00 to 3:00 PM) I planned to investigate with camera in hand.

But yesterday two heavy-hitters (one in the legal profession and another in the media) informed me that I was about to be hit with a SLAPP suit for “intimidation” or “stalking” or making one feel “tortured”.

And since both Select Person Awad and Town Meeting member Hubley (also a former Select Person) are—at least technically—still Amherst public officials, they would rely on the town attorney to file the suit at taxpayer expense.

Of course, BOTH my heavy-hitter sources said I would win hands down since Awad/Hubley are public officials and both are dead wrong about this residency issue but it would take time, money and an initial headline or two that would not be overly sympathetic (since the brick-and-mortar media fears blogs they would love to headline a story “blogger gone berserk.”

But I cycled by anyway, as their condo is on a bike route I do at least twice weekly.

Why it matters

Update: 2:45 PM
SLIGHT CORRECTION

Ultra-informed source tells me that the Select board voted 3-2 on February 25 to place the 3% CPA surcharge on the Town Meeting warrant (with, of course, Anne Awad voting in the majority).

On April 7 the newly constituted Select Board (Greeney out, O’Keeffe and Stein in) signed the Warrant for the annual Town Meeting and nothing could be added after that.

On April 23 the Select Board voted 3-2 (Brewer and O’Keeffe opposed, Awad, Stein, His Lordship Gerry Weiss in favor) to recommend/approve Article 24, the CPA tax increase to 3%.

My point, of course, still applies (like a Harpoon from Hell).

Original post 11:45 AM:

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
June 6, 2008

Dear Attorney General Coakley,

On May 20 I requested you undertake a ‘quo warranto procedure’ to remove from office Amherst Town Meeting member Robie Hubley because he had signed on April 10 a ‘Homestead’ declaration for a residency in South Hadley.

Both Mr. Hubley and his wife Anne Awad, currently an Amherst Select Board member, also signed a mortgage that day with an FDIC insured bank that clearly states: “Occupancy: Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence with 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy.”

Since the Homestead declaration also covers Ms. Awad, it is quite possibly an investigation will conclude that she was no longer entitled to serve on the Amherst Select Board as of April 10.

On April 23 the Amherst Select board voted 3-2 (with Ms. Awad making the motion and then voting in the majority) to place on the Annual Town Meeting warrant an article to increase the Community Preservation surcharge Tax from 1.5% to 3%. Town meeting approved the measure and it will be placed on the November Ballot.

But, if Ms. Awad were not legally entitled to vote as a Board member on April 23, the outcome would have been a 2-2 tie and the measure would not have been placed on the Town Meeting Warrant and would not appear on the ballot this November.

Certainly as of June 10, because of the mortgage, Ms Awad is no longer a resident of Amherst. And from that day forward any 3-2 vote of the Amherst Select Board that she participates in will be subject to legal challenge.

In fairness to the voters of Amherst, could your office please expedite an investigation into this matter?

Sincerely Yours,


Larry Kelley
Amherst Town Meeting
Amherst Redevelopment Authority