Middletown to Tax Tents

Did I catch your attention? The Middletown Council meets next Mon. at 7. Here is the agenda. Most is pretty routine & has been discussed before. And then there's the new tent tax & regs, also referred to as an ordinance. But I suppose this is all due to the terrible tent tragedies we've had here lately. Oh, that's right. There haven't been any. However, there was the state problem... oh, that's right; there weren't any there either. Though I'm forgetting the huge demand & outcry for these regs. Nope, no-go there either.

I remember a few years ago when the circus was held here in a tent. Then there are weddings, parties, fundraisers, the Bird Santuary's annual breakfast, the concerts at Sweet Berry Farm, etc. Well, bye-bye.

If your tent is larger than 120 sq. ft. (10x12) it needs a permit from the Building Inspector. It's good for 30 days. A tent is any structured canvas-type structure. You also will need permission from the fire dept. Think any of this will be easy? Ever tried to get either out to your property; esp. the fire dept- unless it's a fire? Think they just give out assents without further requirements? Silly you. God bless you if there is to be 200 or more.

Stupid. Some of the fire regs, if, indeed, you can actually find out what they are, make little sense and are expensive to comply with. Not to mention occupying expensive personnel with something the building inspector could likely do, but can't. Because the State says so & few can figure out what the your local fire dept. demands anyway.

Will it pass? Sigh. Likely. Just another tax- this one is more complex than most & sounds good until you really get into the nitty gritty of EXACTLY what license compliance means. But will anyone even ask? Whose idea was this anyway? Let me guess...

Farewell Bird Breakfast, concerts, parties, blah, blah. Plenty of hotels around though, right? Sigh.

What's the difference between a tax & a fee? Taxes are generally fairer. How much more can we get gouged? Wait a minute, I'm sure they'll figure out one to cost you $. Just remember, sooner or later, these fees likely apply to you too, or you contribute towards them.

New Poll!

If I leave polls on too long, people play with them to manipulate the results (and you know who you are). LOL!

So here is a new one for your perusal & entertainment. Feel free to suggest new ones.

The old one regarding allowing residents to vote on ALL the Middletown Charter Commission changes as opposed to "most" was overwhelmingly "YES!" Keep this in mind when looking at current Council candidates. ASK!

Who is in favor of placing all changes on the ballot- Ed Silveira and Robert Sylvia (current members), Eileen Spillane (me), BarbaraVonVillas, Helen Christy, & Antone Viveiros. ?Ron Santa? If I missed someone, this would be a good time to speak.

NDN on Middletown "Hypocrites"

There is an interesting mini-editorial in todays NDN. It comments on our recent Charter Review Board's suggestions for Charter changes. Now I've commented on this more than a few times before. Why was this commission formed in the first place? That in itself is a good question since the last one was only a few years ago & the requirement is every 10 yrs.

Anyone who voted for this committee (and it was unanimous) had to realize that non-partisan elections would once again put forth unless they were blooming idiots or thought that they had so stacked this board that it would not be on the agenda. Either one gives pause.

However, the board voted uanimously that this proposition should be placed before the town electorate along with longer terms and term limits. So why were all their other suggestions approved as voter questions except these three?

Repeatedly I've heard the Dem. Town leadership lecture on this topic (non-partisan elections) and insist that it was going to be the litmus test for candidate approval for its slate. The questions needs to be ask- is it? And what about the Republicans? Their leadership has weighed in on the topic before as being against it & its two members on the Council did not support it.

One wonders why not? Myself, I really don't see that much would change. Because you have non-partisan elections does not mean that one cannot seek Party endorsements or funding. Party structures would still exist. The one caveat is that candidates would all have to go out on their own & seek the 50 voter nominations on their own. Now, party slates obtain the 50 signatures for ALL their candidates. Easier. Definitely.

Should voters be allowed to vote on this? I say yes. Vote on them all. If they are intelligent enough to vote for councilors & school committee members, they can weigh in on this. What is the Party leadership so darned worried about anyway? Whoever has been giving them advice should have been relieved of command a long time ago. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?

"... council members should heed the recommendation of the Charter Review commission they appointed and put the proposals on the ballot for voters to consider. Instead, some council members beat their chests about the two-party system being the foundation of democracy in America. Unfortunately, coming from a council that has a bitterly divided Democratic majority, that excuse seems hypocritical at best."

Yeah, hypocritical.

So who didn't think you were smart enough to vote on this- Barrow, Santos, Rodrigues, and Mello (the latter two aren't running in Nov.). Who thought you should vote on these issues- Silveira, Sylvia, and DiPalma (latter isn't running for Council).

The question at this point is not whether or not you like ALL of the Charter changes, but whether or not you should be able to VOTE on ALL of them. I say yea. The voters in my poll say yea.

If you're running for election as a Party endorsed candidate, you have some 'splainin' to do here. Why should the public be allowed to vote on most Charter changes, but not others. And you'd also better be willing to 'splain your Party leadership's position if it's not yours. Good luck.

Partisan Elections to Stay in Middletown

For the second time the Council has decided to ignore a Charter Review Commission. On a 4-2 vote tonight both 4 yr. terms & non-partisan elections with term limits rec'd a thumbs down. Nay- Rodrigues, Mello, Barrows, & Santos. Yes- DiPalma & Silveira.

The other changes mostly minor, all passed. It's odd. The "Newport Daily News" has constantly promoted non-partisan elections but this time- the silence was defeaning. No, I'm quite sure that the guest editorial promoting partisan elections & 2 yr. terms from Dem. Chair Dave Lavine (NDN owner's Indian Ave. neighbor) was purely coincidental.

Mind you, the Council vote was only to place these items on the ballot, not necessarily agreement thereof.

So here is how it went down: Rodrigues- might have supported it two years ago. Now considers it "un-American" after receiving a few phone calls. Hmmm, wonder how they feel about this in Tiv. & Newport. How about our own non-partisan school committee?

Mello- previously promoted all these changes. But had a few phone calls & changed her mind. So much for consistency. It's vastly over-rated. Odd remark- "You spend a whole year learning and then spend a year politicking for the next Election." Gee, I guess actual policy-making plays no part. And- "if there were non-partisan elections, people from any Party could run." I can't argue with that!

Barrows- favors term limits but not this. Also rec'd phone calls against 4 yr. terms. Without partisan elections she doesn't believe that people would have the impetus to vote or run. Yep, that's the problem in Newport & Tiverton all right. No running & no voting.

So you didn't call? You thought voting was the accepted process for this? Silly you. Isn't it odd that they only rec'd phone calls against?

DiPalma was against non-partisan, but still voted to put the whole thing on the ballot.

Silveira wondered why everyone was throwing in their own private opinion. He thought that it was the voters' opinion that counted & he wanted everyone to weigh in- "[give] voters the right to choose". Evidently he thinks that the voters can actually, what's the word--think! Kind of like when they voted for Councilors.

Now I'll be honest. I would have voted against non-partisan elections & likely 4 yr. terms. But it sure would have been nice to have been asked. Not to mention participate in public debate. I'm not afraid of the public electorate, but evidently some are.

Un-American? What does that say about those who do not belong to either Party? Somebody call those people up & set them straight! Oooh, and don't mention buses... or fish.

Look, I swear I did not make any of this stuff (or quotes) up- my imagination isn't that wild. If the rest of you out there were not so bloody ignorant, some of us could have voted on this.

From Matt Sheley at the "Daily News" (he's not allowed to have as much fun as myself; on the other hand- he actually gets paid) quoting Councilor Sylvia who could not attend the meeting:

The suggestions submitted from this commission, unless they are in obvious conflict with state and federal laws, should be submitted in tact to the citizens of our town for their consideration,” he said. “We, as a body of seven, should not determine what suggestions should or should not be submitted. For us to arbitrarily select and determine what is to be presented to our citizens is wrong.

But, but, didn't you get any phone calls? Doesn't anyone know these 3 guys' numbers?

VonVillas Annnounces for Middletown Council Seat

I'll post some of the highlights of her speech. The room was full & by the middle of her speech, she had the crowd's rapt attention. Barbara is the chair of the Charter Commission & was a former School Committee Chair.

She decried the use of police officers at meetings & thought that there are other means to ensure safety. "This council continues to behave in a way that is embarrassing to the town of Middletown."

She continued with this theme:

Some on this council, however, react to differences of opinion childishly by bullying, which sets a tone for interaction among council members as well as for the public. If the conduct of the public is inappropriate, it is the fault of this council.

I was at a meeting one month ago when the council engaged in a dialogue on a contentious issue. The discussion about a motion was ended when one councilor had a temper tantrum, accused others of casting blame on him for wrongdoing, and made a motion that everyone in attendance and those who read the papers recognized was a sham.

At times during the controversy, there was applause for one speaker or another, a
traditional reflection of support. However, there were also catcalls, insults, and gutter language that was shocking at a public meeting. I ask you - how can one expect the audience to behave appropriately when the council sets the tone by modeling offensive behavior?

Barbara then commented on the lack of a behavior policy & contentiousness surrounding board appointments (again- no policy). She advocated for non-partisan elections & the placing of ALL the charter commission's recommendations for ballot inclusion.

She then announced her candidacy for office- in part, I think, to offset any rumors.

Tonight at 6 at Oliphant School there will be a discussion by the Council on the Charter recommendations.

I believe that she's on-the-money reading much of townwide discontent. Feel free to comment. It took a lot of courage to stand in front of the Council & criticize some of them regarding their behavior. Did it hit home?

Middletown Charter Meeting Tues. at 6 at Oliphant

On Tuesday, June 17, 2008, at 6:00 P.M. the Town Council will meet to consider which amendments to the Middletown Charter will be placed on the November ballot. They meet at OLIPHANT SCHOOL.

Amendments proposed and recommended by the Charter Review Commission and under consideration are:

· Non-partisan Council elections
· Town Council term limits
· Town Council election schedules
· Conflict of Interest definition clarification

The meeting will be held at the Middletown School Administration Building, Lower Level, Oliphant Lane.

Please attend and make your voice heard!

Surely if Middletown voters can decide on a U.S. president, the expansion of gambling, and local Councilors; they can decide on the Charter changes for their own government.

Middletown's Charter Hearing #2

It began with the Prez apologizing for the lack of a quorum for the previous hearing. It was, he stated, "unacceptable." This time except for DiPalma & Barrows (late) all councilors were present.

What fun! Antone Viveiros handed out 11 proposals to the Council- perhaps they'll get posted here. Then four members of the same family owning an Indian Ave. estate testified. They are also tied in with the current admin of the Dem. Town Committee. Dave Lavine (chair of the D.T.C.) spoke the longest (more than 15 min.) against two Charter changes- non-partisan elections and four year terms. He also entertained questions!? However, whenever he was asked them he always began, "You clearly didn't hear me." Pass out those hearing aids! So much for entertaining questions. Big Daddy speaks. He also commended all Council members & said they were doing a good job. Hmmm....

Elizabeth Bozyan (Charter commission member & Dem. Town Com. sometime-official) spoke most angrily- indicated by her rising tone (who needs a mic?). She had criticisms about the committee (no research, no outside comments, no final vote) & obviously relished them while smiling at Barbara Von Villas (Charter Chair). She obviously takes the committee results quite personally & wants us all to get this (we do, we do). Oddly enough she voted for placing non-partisan elections on the ballot & now speaks vehemently against it Go figure.

Husband, Frank, also spoke (quietly) along with Glayds Lavine (D.T.C. treasurer). Frank stated that "...party structure helps get good people on the Council." But last election he campaigned for those outside that structure. It does boggle the mind sometimes. Forget basic logic (where is Mr. Spock when you need him). They spoke as individuals and not as members of the Dem. Town Committee- no one ever put this up for a vote there. So much for the Dem. process.

Council Mello (the Commission's council rep & the motion-maker to organize the commission)- defended the group with the fact that research was done & outside comments/suggestions brought forth. It's a pity that the Commission couldn't bring some outside voices to speak FOR placing these changes on the ballot. The best defense is a good offense and all that.

To say that all this is ironic is putting it mildly. In the last election the Lavines/Bozyans campaigned for 3 Dem. candidates & 2 Republicans. Hmmm, sounds non-partisan to me. As Dave Lavine stated- last time we weren't in charge [of the Dem. Town Com.] The mind swirls...

It should be remembered that we're talking only about placing these items on a ballot- adopt changes or not. This was repeatedly pointed out by Councilors Silveira & Sylvia. How stupid are all of you out there? Evidently, smart enough to vote for councilors but not on the Charter.

Kudos to Councilors Sylvia & Silveira. The former stated that a vote on the changes "better served" the public while the latter is "ready to bless it [charter change proposals] and allow the residents to vote." Silveira also stated when pointedly criticized by Elizabeth Boyzan that the voters are "grown-up and not stupid."

It was entertaining & I wish that it could have been filmed & placed on Youtube.

Bill O'Connell, member of the Charter commission & former Rep. Council candidate also spoke against non-partisan elections.

Barbara VonVillas (Chair & former School Committee Chair) spoke twice- once to respond to Bozyan's criticisms & then to admonish the Council (most politely) to get on with this as there are time constraints when it appeared that a Council discussion & vote? would not take place till the end of June. To get on the ballot this stuff needs to be wrapped up in July. Will it?

One would assume that the members of the Council who voted for this Charter commission (all of them) knew exactly what the results portended. Once you've let the genie out of the bottle and all that... It will be interested seeing the results. Do I favor all the changes proposed? Not really. Do I think that it should be on the ballot- YES!

Next meeting is June 17 at 6 pm in the Library.

Check the Daily News later for reporter Matt Sheley's take on all of this.

Middletown Charter Review Hearing Cancelled

The first hearing on proposed Chater changes was supposed to be Thurs. night. There was no quorum & so no hearing. Showing up were Councilors Mello, Silveira, & Santos. Odd, the prez was not there & was not out of town on business. There were Charter committee members in the audience & a few others.

With the Dem. Town Committee leadership decidely against non-partisan elections, this may well prove to be very interesting topic. Councilor Mello has said in the past that she favored them. Considering that Republican Mello & Barrows ran on the same ticket as Dems Mello, Rodrigues, & Sylvia- it seems as if it's already been there, done that. The local Dem leadership maintains this is not so & it's different now that they are in charge- ??? Revisionist history. Yes, it's nice to have flexible beliefs, standards, & platforms, which may explain the lack of a full slate yet and not much $ in the bank. Councilors Sylvia & Silveira still have not yet been asked to be on the slate. And forget School Committee candidates. With the non-partisan elections for them, they are orphans.


This month has been a killer schedule for the Council with budget hearings, etc. But we don't expect them to have actual lives, right? The next Chater hearing will be Thurs., May 29 at 6. Committee Chair Barbara VonVillas is not happy. Expect to hear more about this.

Kempen Speaks with Projo

Projo's Meaghan Wims is reporting a short interview with Gerry Kempen regarding his Council letter to make public his separation agreement from Middletown's Town Admin. position.

I would be willing to say it all publicly, or in private,” Kempen said yesterday. “It’s all going to be up to the council. I will speak freely as long as they request it.

Ah, but there's the rub. Will they request it? Legally Kempen could be ruled in violation of the agreement if he spoke on it & sued. However, would the Council do this? The Council prez, Rodrigues, refused to comment until hearing from the town solicitor. Hmm, methinks this is the old get rid of the hot potato game. The pressure is on.

A reponse from Councilor Sylvia:

It’s fantastic. I applaud the man for doing it. I was shocked, pleasantly shocked. At least this guy is standing up and being honorable… I don’t care how you look at it, we were part of a cover-up. Whether we chose to or not, a majority voted on” the separation deal [all but Sylvia & Silveira].

I want the public to come and listen. It doesn’t have to be an interrogation of Gerry Kempen. Let him sit down and voice the reasons why he initiated this.For the citizens of our town and for government awareness and perception, we need this. We’re looked at terribly. The whole council’s been tainted by this. However you look at this, it was wrong.”

What does he mean by a cover-up? It means that basically the Council paid the former Town Administrator big bucks (speculation is over 6 mos. of his salary) to keep his mouth shut over why he felt that he was being pressured to exit- stage right. Do I blame Kempen? If your job & future were on the line what would you do? If he had complained sooner what would have happened? Probably much the same, but he would have exited with fewer $. The fate of whistleblowers isn't usually that pleasant.

“I think it’s the opportunity to clear the air and remove any speculation or doubts about what details are in the agreement,” Councilman Louis P. DiPalma said."

It is pointed out that DiPalma originally voted for this agreement as did Barrows who recently voted to make it public. Too bad the this realization didn't come a lot sooner or all this would already be history- the lipsticked pig still stunk.

“The community only stands to benefit from knowing the facts and understanding the total compensation to pay Gerry off,” [Councilman Ed] Silveira said. The council must be accountable for its deal with Kempen, and preventing the airing of those details is unacceptable.

“We are all accountable to the taxpayers and any and all inappropriate behavior [by council members] should be disclosed,” he said. “This open invitation should be acted upon immediately and proper measurements should be taken to insure the protection of both parties. Let the taxpayers of the community, who footed the bill for alleged bad behavior, be the judge.”

Strong words. Will we ever know what Mr. Kempen meant when his lawyer wrote regarding charges that “certain” officials had worked to “undermine his status and job effectiveness?” If this could be proven, the Charter could be invoked & the consequences could be serious.

We'll see if it shows up on the next Council agenda or not. If it gets buried through legalities or procedure, or even a councilor being absent-and I'm betting that it does, Kempen may well decide to speak up irregardless. He's not a happy man & as election time rolls around, he may regale us with his song. Which just goes to prove, money doesn't heal all wounds.

Wouldn't it be interesting if ex-Town Admin. Mike Embry also decided to sing? Perhaps they could find a few others & form a quartet.

Middletown's Charter Review Commission

Friday morning the Middletown Charter Review Commission was the subject of a suit brought by Antone Viveros and others in challenging the right of the Council to appoint members to the group rather than holding an election. This is the second time that Viveros has challenged Middltown's procedure in Charter Commission reviews. Local lawyer Joe Palumbo acted in his behalf. I would have liked to have been there, but no go. Thanks to Daily News Reporter Matt Sheley for his article.

John McDaid of Hard Deadlines will be encouraged (!) that Portsmouth Concerned Citizens President, Larry Fitzmorris, was seated next to Antone. At least Antone's group, Island Watchdogs, charges no membership fee & doesn't take a vote on whether or not approve members. I met Antone "on the road" last summer campaigning. While we don't always agree on issues, I admire his grassroots initative & dedication.

These are the appointed members of our local charter commission (nothing about this group is listed on the town's web site, BTW) . Oh, Antone was NOT appointed, despite his applying. I would have appointed all who applied rather than abide by the arbitrary number of nine - this was the motion the "White Knight" Silveira & " Tries Harder" DiPalma voted for. "Mother" Theresa Santos, who must not have been well that night, commented that everyone knows that a committee is always 9 people. Hmm, just like the Supreme Court, the Aquidneck Island Planning Commission, & all town boards/commissions - NOT.

Members:

Virgel J. Blaschke - ab., ab
Elizabeth Pike Bozyan
Lucie-Anne Dionne-Thomas , Sec'y. I appreciate the info she furnished me
Francis A. Forgue
David P. Leys
Robert F. Matose - ab., ab, late
William R. O’Connell - ab.
Morrie P. Seiple - ab., ab, ab
Barbara A. Vonvillas
Shirley Mello - Council rep.

Minutes don't indicate who officers are.

What have they been up to? Reviewing their minutes, these are present suggestions. Their next meeting is Sept. 6. I went to their Aug. meeting. Unfortunately town hall was locked & not enough members showed up for a quorum. Why apply for a committee & not attend? And why should a Chair put up with this?

So far these changes are what they are suggesting to the Council. It is up to the Council to decide which of these changes, if any, will be voted upon by the public.

1. Council terms of 4 years.

Current status: 2 years
Other towns/cities w/4 yr terms.: 5

2. Non-partisan Council Elections.

Current status: Partisan.

Other towns/cities w/non-partisan Councils: 7
The unanimous vote for this surprises me as one member has stated publicly that they oppose this & two others have stated in various venues that they oppose it. Another member who was absent also publicly opposed this.

3. Council terms: two four-year terms (limit), then a min. of 4 yrs. off.

Current status: 2 yrs.
Others towns/cities: 5 have 4 yr-terms, the rest 2. None have term limits.

4. Charter Reviews: every 5 yrs.

Current status: Every 10 yrs.
Other towns/cities: 13 have no time requirements, 11 require them every 10 yrs., 4 every 6 yrs. , 8 every 5 yrs.

5. Bond limitations: change Sec. 207(g) to read: Bond Limitation Without Referendum. No bonds shall be issued pledging the credit of the town in excess of 1% of the property tax levy (raised to appx. $260,000 from current $100,000)in any one fiscal year unless submitted to a vote of the electors at either a general or special election, and approved by a majority of the electors voting at said election.

6. Section 305 of the Charter to read as follows: “The council or any of its members shall not direct or request the appointment of any person to or his removal from office by the town administrator or by any of his subordinates [this sentence fragment removed]. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the town administrator ; individual council members shall not seek to direct the actions of the Town Administrator and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the town administrator, either publicly or privately.”