After attempting to contact the Mayor and the City Solicitor and being stonewalled (gee there's a surprise), Jason Kraunelis has appealed to the Secretary of State Van Campen's ruling that Jaime McCallister Grande should be sworn in as CKK's replacement.
I would offer the following:
To Mr Kraunelis - contact the Attorney General's office and ask for an injunction preventing the City from swearing in anyone until the confusion about succession is ruled upon.
To Ms McCallister-Grande - refuse to be sworn in until such decision is finalized.
My reading of the charter leads me to believe that Ms McCallister-Grande is entitled to the seat, but because the charter is so poorly written, the resulting differing opinions about what it actually means should be settled prior to either being sworn in. Mr Kraunelis is entitled to such confirmation, and I doubt very much if the City will implode if the swearing in is delayed a week or so. It's the right thing to do.
Slow down. Get it right.
He would need to go to court for that, not just contact the AG. He has said that he has no intention to sue for the seat. I believe that if he doesn't want to spend the lawyer fees involved in suing for the seat, I highly doubt he would retain a lawyer to get an injunction against the city.
I believe, because it involves a government entity, it is the Attorney General who would take the issue before a judge to request an injunction. I don't believe Mr Kraunelis would incur any cost. Asking for the Attorney General to rule is not the same thing as filing a suit, and part of that process would be be to call a halt to further action until said ruling is issued.
A poster on the "What kind of school system Does Melrose want" string correctly pointed out that the city charter specifically makes a clear distinction between the "preceding election" which appears to refer to the election that immediately preceded the vacating SC member's term, and the "biennial election" which refers to the election occurring every two years . Had the intent been for Jaime McAllister to fill the seat, the city charter would have worded it as such: "the vacancy shall be filled in descending order of votes received by the candidate for the office of school committee member at the preceding or most recent biennial city election who received the highest number of votes without being elected...
However, the city charter specifically says "If a vacancy shall occur in the office of school committee "member" (NOT office of school committee), the vacancy shall be filled in descending order of votes received by the candidate for the office of school committee member at the PRECEDING city election (NOT last or most recent annual election)who received the highest number of votes without being elected, provided such person remains eligible and willing to serve and provided such person received votes equal to at least 30 per cent of the vote total received by the person receiving the highest number of votes for the office of school committee member "at THAT election" (NOT at the most recent biennial election).
I do see this point. There was care taken to differentiate between the "office of school committee" and "office of school committee member" which specifically identifies that the charter is speaking to the election that is specific to the outgoing SC member. The SC seats (4 year terms)are staggered such that two come up for re-election at every biennial election. Mr. Kraunelis was the next highest vote getter at "THAT ELECTION" and is entitled to the position to finish out Carrie's unfinished term. The term "THAT ELECTION" was used as opposed to the "most recent biennial election" or "preceding biennial election" to further clarify that the city charter was speaking of the election immediately preceding the outgoing SC member's term.
Really sad that the city is pushing this through so quickly. They can really say whatever they want, can't they? If it worked in their interest to go back to 2013, then they sure would. Jamie will be another Dugan.
However, the city charter specifically says "If a vacancy shall occur in the office of school committee "member" (NOT office of school committee), the vacancy shall be filled in descending order of votes received by the candidate for the office of school committee member at the PRECEDING city election (NOT last or most recent annual election)who received the highest number of votes without being elected, provided such person remains eligible and willing to serve and provided such person received votes equal to at least 30 per cent of the vote total received by the person receiving the highest number of votes for the office of school committee member "at THAT election" (NOT at the most recent biennial election).
A user has posted a take down of that argument in the "What Kind of School System" thread that explains the dual usage. In all instances where biennial is used, it is referring to future elections. Biennial needs to be specified because if it just said "next city election", it could mean any number of elections be it special or primaries that occur before the biennial.
IT has also been pointed out that "the office of school committee member" is substantially different from "the office of THE school committee member". Your interpretation that it should say the office of school committee is strange to say the least because no one is running to be the school committee, they are running to be a school committee member
THAT election obviously refers to the preceding election referenced earlier in the rule. Obviously some people feel otherwise but if I told you I did something the preceding Monday, you would interpret it as I did it last Monday and not 2 Mondays ago! Everyone in this thread would. Guaranteed.
I don't believe this one bit. I actually think that the more likely scenario if roles were reversed would be that the MM crowd would would be making the exact opposite case from what they are now.
I believe most logical people when reading the charter would say the preceding means most recent preceding, and would not twist themselves into pretzels logically to try and justify getting their preferred candidate on the committee.
The poster in the other string effectively addressed the issue of biennial v. preceding. Obtuse wants to stretch that logic to something else which doesn't follow logically.
I'm beginning to recognize "Deliberately Obtuse" as someone who has posted many times on this message board attempting to represent as factual and logical, a position that is anything but.
I'm beginning to recognize "Deliberately Obtuse" as someone who has posted many times on this message board attempting to represent as factual and logical, a position that is anything but.
I welcome you to explain how my explanation of the use of biennial when referencing future elections in the rule doesn't "follow logically".
You have chosen to agree with someone's interpretation that since biennial is used when referring to future elections it negates the commonly accepted use of the word preceding when dealing with prior elections. I fail to see any logical correlation there.
Newton’s Third Law of Melrose Messages – “For every action taking place in Melrose there will be an equal and opposite reaction on the Melrose Messages anonymous message board.”
That is the whole concept of a message board: A place where ideas and different opinions can be discussed...without the retaliation hit squad (Dolan and cronies , Van Campen, Taymore, Driscoll, etc.) violating the 1st Amendment and taking vengeance because someone has offered a different opinion or has complained about how city hall or the schools are run.
I don't believe this one bit. I actually think that the more likely scenario if roles were reversed would be that the MM crowd would would be making the exact opposite case from what they are now.
You are entirely incorrect. If the roles were reversed, I'd take exactly the same stance as I'm taking now. I am a frequent poster - I guess that qualifies me as one of the "MM crowd" - and although my reading of the charter leads me to think McCallister-Grande should get the seat, I concede that there is sufficient ambiguity in the charter language that a definitive reading should be given by a higher authority, and by that I absolutely do not mean Van Campen. Given his conduct in the OCR debacle and in other matters, I wouldn't trust him to take out my trash. If the City wants to show good faith, they'll take this to the AG themselves.
The fact that the City wants to push this through so quickly makes me very suspicious. Surely the City will not implode if the time is taken to lock this down correctly, and I believe Mr Kraunelis deserves a fair and impartial hearing. I really don't care which is appointed - I see it as a net loss whichever it is, but it seems that posters here are about equally split over who should get the seat, so let's take it to someone who knows what's she's doing, and not rely on the opinion of a hack with a terrible track record.
UPDATE: Free Press - "Jaime McAllister-Grande is scheduled to be sworn in to the School Committee on Monday at 9 a.m. in the City Clerk's office."
I believe most logical people when reading the charter would say the preceding means most recent preceding, and would not twist themselves into pretzels logically to try and justify getting their preferred candidate on the committee.
You are incorrectly using the common dictionary use of the word "preceding" instead of the legal definition. It is the legal definition that would be used in the city charter. The legal definition of "preceding" is quite different and is defined as: above-mentioned, antecedent event, precedent, precessional, precursive, precursory, preexistent, prefatory, preliminary, preludial.
The preceding event spoken of in the charter is obviously the election involving the seat being vacated by Ms. Kourkoumelis and has nothing to do with the most recent election for two entirely different SC seats.
Kraunelis is a loser. He never won anything. He's the punchline to the old joke "That loser couldn't even get elected to the school committee." Now he wants something for nothing. If he really cared that much he would have run in the most recent election..but he chose not to. How hard could it have been to beat a criminal that stole from old people? He's out, tough sh*t for him and all the clowns of Melrose Messages that want him in to be the new obstructionist loser replacing the one that just quit. You Bozo's keep lining them up and the rest of Melrose can laugh their @sses off while they get beaten, quit, or get out voted. The charter is clear. You losers lose again. You want change? Have Kraunelis runs MM campaign for Mayor in 4 years. Lets see how that goes.
Precisely, "Truth". "Clown Patrol" epitomizes the ugliest dark side of Melrose, the perfect cheerleader for the Dolan administration, where there is no honor.
I've determined that Clown Patrol needs anger therapy........and is he possibly a thug for Trump's storm troopers..[:)s][:)s]
