https://vimeo.com/123798016
Here it is, the city solicitor laying out the "error" in no uncertain terms made by Thorp (who normally just bullies her way through any conflict and this time had to admit she was wrong), and how the SC would need to "remediate" the breaking of the law. Keep in mind this is an "error" these same people have purposely made and been cited for before. Kind of amazing that they "admit" their "error." Yeah, this is such a "thoughtful," "mindful," and "reflective" committee all right. Interesting to listen to the budget bloviating right afterwards, and Conway blathering about the middle school trying to wipe away the known awareness of the disasters he is causing there. Thoughtful is not the word any intelligent person would use to describe what these hacks are.
Yes Old Guy, because it is important for people to know what is going on in their City, never mind that they have a lawful right to know how their elected representatives are behaving and how they spend their hard earned tax dollars.
Wiser guy sounds a lot like Mr. TK. And I agree with Old Guy...not again.
Here is my sugestion for the next school committee meeting scheduled for April 14th when Chairwoman Thorp is being "forced" to do her "mea-culpa" - everyone in the audience stand up and applaud - this would highlight the highly unusual occurrence of such an apology - in a very public way!
And if you carefully watch her facial expression during her mea-culpa, you will notice her great distain for having to perform this demeaning act - quite befitting a disgraced public servant.
Lets see how many people "everyone" is. I'm guessing the first row won't be filled.
Yes Spock, I'm sure MFD and his "three friends" are responsible for the 620 views on this topic alone in only four days. It may not be an army but people are certainly getting the message. Now, go back and report to RD like a good foot soldier...
By Jon Palmer @JonPalmerBDC
Boston.com Staff | 04.02.15 | 5:55 PM
Concord residents may soon have the power to kick town officials out of office.
Resident Lee Ann Kay introduced a recall article, which will be voted on April 12 at the Concord Town Meeting. Kay moved to Concord over 25 years ago and has been participating in Town Meetings ever since.
She said there isn’t any town official in particular she wants to oust—but she said “there have been questions about accountability in the past,” and the petitioners want the same recall ability that exists in other communities in the state. In fact, they modeled their proposal after similar, recent legislation in the towns of Lancaster, Middlefield, Wales, and Northfield.
“I and the petitioners thought that this would be a good means to increase accountability here in the town of Concord,” Kay told Boston.com
If the provision passes at Town Meeting, the Concord Board of Selectmen will submit it to the state legislature, which will then decide whether or not to approve it.
Stephen Ng, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, told Boston.com the board unanimously agreed not to take a position on the article.
“It’s legislation that will affect our positions, so we didn’t want to influence the public one way or another,” he said. “We thought it wasn’t our place to take a position on proposals that would affect us.”
If the provision passes, here’s how the recall process would work:
• First, 100 signatures from registered voters in favor of recalling a specific official would need to be collected.
• The town clerk would then print up official recall petition sheets, asking selectmen to demand a recall and the election of a successor.
• Petitioners would then have 30 days to collect signatures from 10 percent of registered voters in Concord (that’s roughly 1,300 people by 2013 stats).
• If those signatures are collected in time, selectmen would schedule a recall vote within the next 60 to 90 days.
• The ballot would have two questions: One, whether the sitting official should be removed, and two, which new candidate should take their place.
Ng pointed out that the Town Governance Study Committee, a group commissioned in spring 2013 to review Concord’s Town Charter, recommended that the town not adopt a recall process. Their final report, released in August 2014, noted that a series of ethics and transparency laws already in place offer ways to hold officials accountable for their actions—and deemed the three-year cycle that local elections run on frequent enough.
Kay said that the petitioners reached the opposite conclusion after viewing the report. She said measures for removing elected officials are needed for those who might willfully disobey ethics laws, or to remove and replace an incapacitated office holder. Kay said—and Ng confirmed—that there are currently no means within the Town Charter to remove an elected official before the end of their term.
“The petitioners and I believe that the Town Governance Study Committee have had their say,” she said. “Now it’s time for the citizens to review the evidence for or against and make their decision at Town Meeting.”
In Concord, every registered voter in town has a say at Town Meeting.
Though Ng and the board remain neutral on the recall article, he praised the Town Meeting process and Kay’s efforts.
“I think what’s great is that the petitioner is using Town Meeting the way it should be—she has a concern, and she feels that this article addresses this perceived need, and it’s pure democracy at work,” Ng said. “Whether the town feels they need this just in case, that’s something they can decide, and we’ll put it on the books if they want to have it.”
Who cares if a the Town of Concord has some crazy lady trying to force a recall vote. That's what you get with Town government, Stoneham is trying a similar move...and then we have the great Town of Wakefield. That's what you get at town meetings. A bunch of ignorant rubes thinking they are smarter than the City employees. If you have something relevant to say about how City governments are run I'm sure you will find a way to post it.
Really. Heaven forbid that taxpayers should have any input at all into the running of their own government, since they're all stupid, and the only smart ones are the ones in office. Do you were latex gloves when you play with yourself?
"Taxpayers who fund our schools and vote for representatives to school committee to protect the students' and taxpayers' interests simply want the rule of law followed so that their representatives to school committee can actually represent their interests without illegal interference. When the superintendent and school committee members try to illegally thwart basic transparency, the Open Meeting Laws, Public Records Laws and public participation with petty little rules inserted into "guiding documents""
"Guiding" what precisely?
With all their officiousness about process, this bunch on the Committee is shamefully and obviously working against the greater good, not serving the public as they were elected to do. They behave with comprehensive contempt for the public, catering only to their special interests (those parents who agree with their narrow "vision," if one could even call it that).
It's not just their total refusal to honor our right to know what's going on with our own school system that is so heinous. They just have no respect for the fact that they are using our money to pay for their political agenda, not for what is clearly in the best interest of students and the community.
School committee club are quite afraid of transparency.
"They just have no respect"
There it is in a nutshell.
That our city officials and school administrative staff begin to realize that our students are our first priority and that we ALL have a commitment and stake in their success - and not just them .
This school committee is not interested in what parents or the general public have to say. They know what's best. I have had first hand experience with this "superior" attitude. Does not surprise me that they circumvent the law or flat out ignore the law.