Article

PLANET GIVES POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS ON MONDAY, BUT FIRST, A LITTLE BOONGA … UPDATE ON HOMELESS AND WINTER SITUATION … plus … FIRED TRANSCRIPT REPORTER LATCHES ON WITH ANOTHER BB PROPERTY

By DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, FRIDAY, NOV. 1, 2013) — On Monday THE PLANET, presents our political endorsements for the municipal election in Pittsfield. First, though, we share a couple items that have made news recently.  Both stories were broken, exclusively, on THE PLANET. The first deals with the plight of the homeless, with winter approaching, and the polar opposite responses to this pending crisis by two local political leaders. One is a Leader. One is a “leader.” The second deals with the fate of a reporter fired at The Boring Broadsheet‘s sister newspaper, The Transcript. We’ve covered this before, but it still astounds us how we in our solitary quests can ferret out so much news, while the Boring Broadsheet lies comatose, caught in its unwaking nightmare of plunging circulation and reader discontent, turns its back on the community.

Our third story is a brief reflection on this past baseball season in Boston. As some of you may have heard, the season ended in rather decent fashion two nights ago at Fenway Park.

(1) UPDATE ON HOMELESSTHE PLANET is pleased to report that Sen. Ben Downing has responded to our request for assistance, which we made on behalf of Pastor Russell Moody of the Pittsfield Church of Christ. As you will recall, when the building inspector pulled the church’s permit for running a facility for providing homeless people with emergency winter shelter, Moody appealed to Mayor Dan Bianchi. Bianchi gave Moody the cold shoulder and the bum’s rush.  Apparently, homeless people freezing to death have no political value for the do-nothing mayor. THE PLANET ran the story, and we appealed for any community leader to step forward with help.

Sen. Downing wrote:

——- 000 ——-

Comments: DAN - 

Saw the note about the homeless shelter. Recently met with a group of clergy and folks working to address the issue. We talked about both potential alternative sites and other solutions to the matter. I have made contact with the proper state agencies — Department of Housing & Community Development among them — and with the local agencies that work on homeless/shelter issues, including Berkshire Co-Regional Housing and Service Net

Not in any position to speak to city involvement, but I am committed to coming up with a solution to the challenge. It seems every few years we have to scramble to address the “emergency shelter” issue. In many respects, this is because we cannot, despite efforts by our delegation, restrict access in Berkshire County shelters to Berkshire residents. The arguments for this aren’t just the obvious, but they are too many for this e-mail right now. 

Just wanted you to know from my end, I am aware and I fully believe we should be able to solve the situation in some way expeditiously. 

Thanks for the local coverage as always.

— BEN

——- 000 ——-

THE PLANET thanks Sen. Downing for his leadership in this matter. Using the powers of office as well as its bully pulpit is the mark of a leader. Downing has that elusive “It” quality. Bianchi does not. Incidentally, Pastor Moody tells us that:

The Berkshire Eagle [a.k.a. The Boring Broadsheet] has contacted me regarding the cot shelter. You struck a nerve. Funny, they didn’t seem interested a week ago.”

Imagine, prior to THE PLANET‘s coverage, the BB wouldn’t give this story the time of day. Once again, THE PLANET forces the BB’s hand into a semblance of its responsibility as the local daily, a duty, as we saw yesterday with our coverage of reporter Isaac Avilucea‘s plight, the paper has unforgivably shirked.

(2) SPEAKING OF AVILUCEA — The ex-Transcript scribe contacted THE PLANET yesterday about our coverage. He had this to say:

Comments: Dan, thanks for your well-reasoned, cogent post about my situation at the Transcript. You’ll be amused to find out that former Transcript editor-in-chief Mike Foster resigned last week. And I’ve accepted a job at the Register Citizen, in Torrington, Conn., a newspaper owned and operated by the same company, MediaNews Group (or is it 21st Century Media?; whatever it re-branded itself) which owns the Transcript. — ISAAC

We have no word on Foster’s sudden departure, but it points to the instability and chaos rampant in the newsroom. THE PLANET has many good friends in both newsrooms — good journalists who chafe at the position in which they find themselves. They are held back by management from furnishing the sharp-toothed, aggressive coverage that should be the hallmark of a media property, a franchise that should be the area’s shining beacon of the Fourth Estate’s long and necessary tradition to the proper function and health of democracy. We’ve seen too many good journalists get canned for doing their job. We wish Avilucea the best.

The situation also proves an interesting causal connection between the media and an area’s politics. When the dominant media outlet, usually its local daily, refuses to champion aggressively for the public good (notably, with an absence of enterprise or investigative writing), invariably you find the local politics is a morass of self-interest, greed, turf protection, and fear. Any similarity between that description and the political situation in the city of Pittsfield, is strictly intentional.

(3) SOX WIN IT ALLTHE PLANET won’t belabor the obvious, but we will point out that with the Boston Red Sox‘s third world championship in 10 years, winning the World Series calls for a reaction much like Jimmy Brown when he scored a touchdown: “Act like you’ve been there before.”

We have.

THE PLANET will make several quick points:

* From the first day of camp in Ft. Myers, this Sox team looked, acted, and played differently than the sour edition of fat cats of 2012. Clubhouse chemistry can often be overrated in sports, but not in this case. The owners, GM Ben Cherington, and manager John Farrell put together a roster that clicked on and off the field. Gone were the inflated egos of clubhouse cancers BeckettGonzalez, and Crawford. In were hungry ballplayers who loved what they were doing: Victorino, Gomez, Ross, Napoli, Drew, and the others.

* This year’s Red Sox team had an air of fate and destiny about them. That was made clear on Patriot’s Day in the bombing attack at the Boston Marathon. The New England Patriots were not even in pre-season. The Boston Celtics and Boston Bruins were in the post-season. That left it to the Red Sox to take up the slack, and the the entire organization did, in a big-time way. The World Series victory capped some kind of communal closure to the horror of the bombing.

* The Sox victory confirms Boston as Title Town, USA. Never before has one city claimed as many titles in a decade — division, conference, pennant, and world — as Boston has with its four sports teams. Super Bowls, World Series, NBA Championships, and Stanley Cups — We must say: It feels good.

———————————————————————————-

 BE SURE TO TUNE IN ON MONDAY’S PLANET, AS WE PRESENT OUR FEARLESS POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE PITTSFIELD RACES. ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY, NOV. 5. HINT: WE ARE ENDORSING WRITE-IN CANDIDATE “DAN VALENTI” FOR MAYOR.

———————————————————————————-

“Let me bring you songs from the wood to make you feel better than you could know.”Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull, (1977)

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

52 Responses to “PLANET GIVES POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS ON MONDAY, BUT FIRST, A LITTLE BOONGA … UPDATE ON HOMELESS AND WINTER SITUATION … plus … FIRED TRANSCRIPT REPORTER LATCHES ON WITH ANOTHER BB PROPERTY”

  1. danvalenti
    November 1, 2013 at 10:09 am #

    Didn’t have time to put this question in the article today, but here it is. Pittsfield voters are being asked to vote for a new charter, up or down. Most of the GOB seems to be heavily pushing this. That’s fine, and that is their option. However, if this is so bloody necessary, why is it that copies of the actual proposed language HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO CITIZENS? Go to city hall and request the language, and all they can give you is a summary. Devils don’t reside in summaries but in details. Ask yourself: How many Pittsfield voters will actually understand what they are voting for when it comes to the charter. They’re trying to pull a fast one, it would appear. For that reason alone, THE PLANET is recommending the proposed charter be rejected.

    • Mike Ward
      November 1, 2013 at 10:32 am #

      Here’s the proposed charter: http://www.cityofpittsfield.org/pittsfield/government/uploads/Proposed_Charter.pdf

      • smh
        November 1, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

        So does that mean the actual proposed language IS available? Nice way to ruin the whole gosh darn thing Mike Ward! I was just about to say, count me as a NO vote, because the GOB surely ARE, as DV had mentioned, “trying to pull a fast one”. Well, now it might end up as just another one of them there never mind kinda moments, sorta like when Councilor Yon called for the very public smackdown of our City Solicitor, only to then pull the plug on the whole ugly mess just prior to a vote.

      • danvalenti
        November 1, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

        Thanks, Mike. A few points: (a) How many ordinary (for example, not former or current office holders) citizens will know where to find this? (b) Is the full text available in hard copy? (c) If so, where? If not, why not, especially since “They” are telling voters this is so urgent that it needs to pass. When citizens are too busy, too tired, too disinterested, or too apathetic to attend all the “public input” meetings … and when we have reached a point in local government where many community “leaders” are not trusted, can a document like the new charter EVER be revised in a trustworthy manner. It’s the circle coming round to itself, I realize, but when democracy is as fully broken down as it is in Pittsfield, can one evert trust a document like this? All that being said, THE PLANET appreciates former councilor Ward sharing this link.

        • Deb S
          November 2, 2013 at 3:19 am #

          I did go to one of the meetings and I wanted to question paying the school committee and the speaking time for the public was eaten up by Mazzeo and the Mayor.

        • Thomas More
          November 2, 2013 at 5:54 am #

          How many of these meetings did you attend Dan? After all, you are asking us to vote for you. You certainly couldn’t have been too busy, too tired, too disinterested, or too apathetic to attend all the “public input” meetings. Hopefully you were at all of them, I don’t know because I wasn’t there.

  2. MrG1188
    November 1, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    Kudos to Ben for at least stepping in and showing he cares as a public official. Whether he can actually do anything is beside the point. He got involved and for that I thank him and will remember at election time.

    Among the various unwaking nightmares of the Eagle you forgot to mention plummeting ad revenues.

    Rather convenient of the MNG (or whatever it IS called today) to essentially reassign Mr. Avilucea. I’d have to imagine that will forestall a rather costly wrongful dismissal lawsuit. Did Mr. Foster resign in protest, or do we know?

    Penguins beat the Bruins Wednesday night…was there a baseball game too? Thought you might get a kick out of this:

    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/a_yankee_fans_lament_i_dont_hate_these_red_sox/

    Finally, to your final point on the role of the Fourth Estate and the Eagle’s abrogation thereof, the company that owns the Eagle also owns the Troy Record. They are in virtually the same condition, and Troy suffers from much of the same corruption, ineptitude and cronyism as Pittsfield. Your statement is profound and painfully correct.

  3. dusty
    November 1, 2013 at 12:50 pm #

    it is quite alright for the Eagle to put on a beg-a-thon for the 4th of July parade and also the Santa Toy Fund but when it comes to homeless cold people they get kind of Scroogy.

    The people of the city might do more for their well being in the city by cancelling the Eagle than getting out to vote. Why? Because if we can get rid of the propaganda conduit, the ignorant among us might be able to see the forest through the trees and then see why they need to be more active in their own government. Pittsfield government feeds itself on the very people it is meant to serve. Totally ass-backwards.

    p.s. How much money does the city funnel to the paper each year for ads and notices? I would be curious to know

    • skier1
      November 1, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

      They should use The Pittsfield Gazette. It is cheaper and would save the city money!!!!

  4. Linda
    November 1, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

    Well count this former subscriber to the BB as one who canceled her subscription. I never thought of it that way before, the point DV mentions about the relationship between the health of a newspaper and the health of an areas politics.

  5. Ron Kitterman
    November 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    Would have to agree with Dan on a NO vote for the charter. The letter signed and written by Mayor Bianchi, Council President Sherman and Edward J. Lapointe, Chairman just didn’t convince me that this was needed. The National League of Cities , an advocacy group for bigger government. The Police and Fire Chiefs appointed by Mayor Ruberto are still temporary. This did nothing more than change the term of mayor from 2 to 4 years and make it more difficult to recall elected officials. More power for the mayor and less for the people. I know people worked hard for the city and devoted time and effort to the charter but, seems to be a top down proposal not from the bottom up to me. Sort of like the congress with health care a couple years ago let’s just pass it and tweak later. In an election where probably less than 20% will turn out it seems like an ideal time to pass this one on to the voters.

    • Thomas More
      November 3, 2013 at 6:34 am #

      The National League of Cities , an advocacy group for bigger government. What does this sentence mean? It lacks a predicate.

  6. Evian
    November 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    The boring broadsheet is in its death throes.

  7. Jonathan Melle
    November 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    Mayor Dan Bianchi is to blame for all of Pittsfield’s problems!
    * Homelessness in Pittsfield
    * Teen pregnancies in Pittsfield
    * Thousands of welfare caseloads in Pittsfield
    * High municipal taxes and fees in Pittsfield
    * Low median incomes in Pittsfield
    * GE’s toxic waste PCBs pollution in Pittsfield
    * Job loss in Pittsfield
    * Population loss in Pittsfield
    * Substandard public education in Pittsfield
    * The Good Old Boy network in Pittsfield
    * Hundreds of Millions of Dollars of unfunded liabilities or municipal debts in Pittsfield
    * The #1 employer in Pittsfield is the City of Pittsfield
    * The #2 employer in Pittsfield are non-profit organizations like the Hospital
    * There are no Fortune 500 corporations in Pittsfield
    * Thousands of local workers depend on tax dollars in Pittsfield
    * The vested interests in Pittsfield vote for Pittsfield politicians who ensure out of control and unsustainable municipal finances
    * The “Kapanski” family gets screwed by Pittsfield politics
    * Pittsfield politicians will never change Pittsfield politics until Pittsfield goes bankrupt like Detroit
    It is all Mayor Dan Bianchi’s fault!

    • B
      November 2, 2013 at 10:29 am #

      Sounds about right to me!

  8. dusty
    November 2, 2013 at 1:26 am #

    Basically this charter gives more power to an already too powerful city government. What is in it for the people who live in the city? Can’t find anything tangible that won’t bite them in the ass in the end. Voting against it.

  9. Ron Kitterman
    November 2, 2013 at 4:08 am #

    Well stated Dusty

  10. Gatos
    November 2, 2013 at 6:57 am #

    The biggest problem with the proposed charter is the thing most touted by its supporters: a differing term length for mayor and city council. One need look no further than the current election to see the problem: when the mayor doesn’t have to expend any time, money, effort, or political capital for his own reelection, he can use the same to support his chosen ones for city council. In the current case, the Lapdogs Of Bianchi (LOBs) are all calling for greater cooperation in the council and greater support for the mayor. The hypocrisy is appalling. Love or hate Jimmy Ruberto, LOBs Mazzeo and Nichols weren’t exactly all lovey-dovey during his time in office. Add Tully to the mix (I’m sure I’m missing an at-large candidate or two) and we have a rubber-stamp council for Mayor Part-time Open-door Transparency.

    • dusty
      November 2, 2013 at 9:13 am #

      Lothrop, Krol and Yon have been anti mayor since day one…just to name three. There has not been any vote close to a rubber stamp since he got elected and even if he had to sure votes that would not get you there.

      • smh
        November 2, 2013 at 10:17 am #

        Seems what the anti group is attempting is sort of rubber stamp of DISapproval thing. Not sure what you’d call it, but it would mean a solid block of nay votes, sort of like what was on display recently with the vote to join several other impacted communities to explore rest of the river cleanup negotiation strategies. The fab five (Krol/Clairmont/Lothrop/Yon/Capitanio) first voted to table (so far so good), but then, oddly enough, when that failed 6-5, every last one of them went on to vote to simply kill the mayor’s proposal, which then barely passed 6-5.

        • Gatos
          November 2, 2013 at 11:10 am #

          I don’t see what’s odd…this was a proposal put in too close to the meeting to be properly researched. The councilors were being asked to take it on faith that everything would be fine. The supposed advocates of, ya know, research and head-wrapping should have gone with the tabling. Failing that, a no vote makes sense; it could be brought back later after there was time to digest it.

          • Billy
            November 2, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

            Gatos. Well said. If The mayor put in half as much work the opposition wouldn’t be there .they don’t run on a record so they attack people with a record

  11. joetaxpayer
    November 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

    I don’t want to tell anyone who to vote for. Just want everyone to know you do not have to vote for the amount of candidates that are listed for that position. Vote for the people or person you want yo represent you. That doesn’t mean you have to vote the max.Personally I am bullet voting. I will tip my hand and say I will be going with a write in candidate for Mayor!

    • Billy
      November 2, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

      Me to anyone but Bianchi. What a joke

  12. Evian
    November 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

    I too will be voting for a writein candidate for mayor. His first name is Dan.

  13. Hilly Billy
    November 2, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    I would like to thank Se. Downing for his response to the homeless. At least one public official cares, I can’t believe none of the city councilors stepped forward. On Tues I’m voting no on charter, for Latura (I live in 3) and DV mayor write in.

  14. Dave
    November 2, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

    Before I write you in Dan I need to know your position on the proposed plastic bag and Styrofoam bans…….geesh!

  15. TKO
    November 2, 2013 at 7:06 pm #

    I read the charter from the link provided… If I read it correctly… It says that a city councilor cannot have another position working for the city. How will that work for Mr. Caccamo, if he is elected? It doesn’t say anything about the councilor just not taking the pay… I read it as the councilor cannot serve… Is he planning on resigning from the school department? Maybe I am reading it wrong…any thoughts? I was looking at section 2-3 Prohibitions.

    • Thomas More
      November 3, 2013 at 6:28 am #

      I read it the same as you. Since Caccamo is going to win it won’t be a problem. Ward 3 can have another election like it did when Linda Tyre resigned.

      • Citrine
        November 3, 2013 at 7:13 am #

        That is alot of hassel

        maybe Ward 3 citizens should read their own city charter proposal and more about this issue before they just vote because they still have rose colored glasses on about Capitanio and Caccamo is his boy.

        Local politics are important and Pittsfield citizens need to start seeing this.

    • Tom Sakshaug
      November 3, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

      From City Clerk Linda Tyer’s Facebook page:
      There has been a lot of discussion and confusion regarding the eligibility to serve requirements for the City of Pittsfield candidates on Tuesday’s ballot. It is paramount that voters are accurately informed on matters relating to elections. In my capacity as the city’s chief elections official I offer this clarification. If elected all candidates will be deemed eligible to serve based upon the city’s current charter. Elected candidates will not be disqualified by any election clause contained in the proposed charter if it is ratified by the voters. Provisions relating to elections will take affect for the first time in 2015. I hope this helps.

      • danvalenti
        November 3, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

        NOTE: THE PLANET INITIALLY WROTE THIS IN REPLY TO THE POSTING HERE BY WARD 5 CITY COUNCILOR JONATHAN LOTHROP. IT CAN ALSO APPLY TO THE COMMENTS BY TOM SAKSHAUG AND CITY CLERK LINDA TYER:
        I interpret the charter differently. You raise an objection that, of course, I considered. Here’s why it does not apply.
        (a) comparing the mayor’s future term with the ward 3 councilor’s present term is not logical. The new charter, according to the city clerk, goes into effect the moment her office officially certifies the vote for “yeah,” should that be how the vote turns out. The mayor’s four-year term is clearly spelled out to begin in the next election, not this one. The ward 3 term, which the charter does not change, begins NOW, just as the mayor’s final two-year term.
        (b) If the new charter is enacted, it will abolish the two-year term in the next election. It does nothing of the sort for the Ward 3 office.
        Therefore, the only reasonable interpretation is that if the voters approved the new charter, its terms, which immediately go into effect for all offices that are unchanged, prohibit a full-time school department employee from being a councilor. That would apply, then, to Nick, should he win.
        He will win office under the old charter. That office, however, will prohibit him from serving. It would be the same if the new charter prohibited full-time employees of the energy business. The mayor could not serve. It has nothing to do with the two-year/four-year difference.
        I hope this clarifies my position.
        I have reported only the facts (i.e., the provisions of the new charter). I have given the best and most reasonable application of the facts in my extrapolation.
        —————————————————–
        PS: The city clerk’s comments are an interpretation. THE PLANET would suggest they are subject to a court’s judgment. How can the new charter not apply to any office holder, no matter how elected, even if it is under the old charter. The provision of the new charter do nothing to the office or the length of office of the Ward 3 city councilor. It DOES, however, do everything to the eligibility of the person who, having been elected, shall occupy that office.It would seem, then, that the matter is still very much up in the air.

        • Linda Tyer
          November 3, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

          But Dan the operative document for this election is the current city charter. The current charter establishes the terms of office (two years for everyone) and the current charter also establishes a persons eligibility to serve. Everyone who is seeking elected office did so understanding the terms of the current charter. Also, the proposed charter’s transitional provisions reads “The first election under this charter shall be held on November 3, 2015.” Therefore, in my opinion, any section of the proposed charter relating to elected office takes affect at that time.

          • Citrine
            November 4, 2013 at 8:43 am #

            what was the letter from the attorney about then? are you saying they do not know what they are talking about but a city clerk earning 50,000 does?

            Glad your opinion means more than law.

            Im getting to the point that the Eagle and city workers are just trying to baby this candidate to stay on “someones” good side ie the one he is trying to replace.

          • danvalenti
            November 4, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

            LINDA
            Thank you for your informed opinion.

  16. Nota
    November 2, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    The largest single budget, and the councilor cannot vote on it?

    • danvalenti
      November 2, 2013 at 8:57 pm #

      Correct. Caccamo, if electged, will not be able to participate on the school budget. Ward 3 voters will be deprived of a voice on 70+% of the entire city budget.

      TKO: Your reading of the charter is correct. If Caccamo is elected and the charter is voted in, he will not be able to serve. The new charter, if approved, will go into effect on Nov. 6. Caccamo, as new Ward 3 councilor, wouldn’t be sworn in until January. Clearly, he could not legally serve. He has one honorable course of action: Resign his bid for Ward 3 councilor.

      • Citrine
        November 3, 2013 at 7:10 am #

        But he will not because he has no idea how to be a stand up guy… either way he is kind of screwing people… he will either quit his job in the middle of the school year, which is pretty awful for the students and teachers… or he will be a silent butt in the seat.

        Hopefully more Ward 3 people can see this fact so they can make a well informed choice instead of just going out to vote. If they decide to vote for Caccamo after they read the charter and rules, than that is their own problem.

      • Dave
        November 3, 2013 at 8:18 am #

        If he is elected he will probably be annointed new head of 1Berkshire or given some other hack job as a reward from the powers that be.

      • jlo
        November 3, 2013 at 10:08 am #

        Dan – I want to disagree that Nick Caccamo could not serve in the upcoming Council term. The reason is simple, the rules of eligibility for which Mr. Caccamo qualified as a candidate, are from the current City Charter. If the proposed Charter passes, then it is possible for Mr. Caccamo to serve one term. The election following is when the new eligibility requirements would kick in. Then it would appear that he could not serve a second term, again assuming the Charter passes and if not amended in the intervening two years.

        It is the same reason that the Mayor would not get a four year term, in January should that Charter proposal pass. The current rules apply to this election cycle, period. Check with any attorney with an municipal experience, they will tell you the same thing.

        This is the kind of false argument that needs to be called out, especially since the election is two days away.

      • smh
        November 3, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

        Could be wrong, but my understanding was the Charter, if approved, would actually go into effect at a point where it would not technically cause a problem for a Caccamo first term.

        • Dave
          November 3, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

          smh, that might depend. Is it a change that was made that would affect Mr. Caccamo, or was this provision already present in the old charter. If it is a change or new, you may be correct because it may be like the term for Mayor and not take effect until 2015.

        • Toland
          November 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

          After reading the charter, it’s clear that if approved, it would go into effect immediately. This will mean that if Mr. Caccamo wins the election, he does so under the provisions of the old charter. However, if approved, the new charter then kicks in, and he would be ineligible to serve.

          • Linda Tyer
            November 3, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

            There has been a lot of discussion and confusion regarding the eligibility to serve requirements for the City of Pittsfield candidates on Tuesday’s ballot. It is paramount that voters are accurately informed on matters relating to elections. In my capacity as the city’s chief elections official I offer this clarification. If elected all candidates will be deemed eligible to serve based upon the city’s current charter. Elected candidates will not be disqualified by any election clause contained in the proposed charter if it is ratified by the voters. Provisions relating to elections will take affect for the first time in 2015. I hope this helps.

          • Citrine
            November 4, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

            You go Linda .you keep letting Paulie control your mind !! Great job!

  17. Mr. X
    November 3, 2013 at 5:38 am #

    Thanks Mike Ward for the charter info. I will be voting no on it…main reason being the open window for possible compensation for the school committee, where would that come from? I think the city council should have their pay part of their compensation at least cut in half, and take away their health insurance and retirement as well. Some people work 40-60 hours a week and don’t get that, why should we pay that for part time people?

    • Hilly Billy
      November 3, 2013 at 9:54 am #

      I agree with Mr X about compensation. NO for school committee and reduced for councilors. Let them feel out pain a little bit. Also I’m voting NO on new charter.

    • dusty
      November 3, 2013 at 10:35 am #

      I just think about how crummy I would have felt if this current school committee had gotten paid. Only one or two deserved it because the rest of them voted as they were told not as independent thinkers. They were certainly not representing the parents and people. I have no reason to believe the next crew will be any different.

  18. Hilly Billy
    November 3, 2013 at 9:55 am #

    also since I don’t want a rep who can’t participate fully (I live in Ward 3) I will be voting Rick Latura.

  19. Mr. X
    November 4, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    I’m afraid to say that JLO’s statements about Caccamo are correct, and I’m pretty sure if elected he cannot collect the $8000 compensation, so if victorious he will say us that dough, I guess.

    • danvalenti
      November 4, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

      MR X
      That’s the silver lining. However, Ward 3 residents should realize that if Nick wins, they will lose their voice on anything to do with the schools, including the appropriations and a vote on Taconic. Moreover, Mr. C will not be abel to do any ward work on school time. That makes him strictly part time.

    • dusty
      November 5, 2013 at 12:49 am #

      At first I thought Caccamo deserved a shot. But now that Lothrop is pushing for him I sense that this guy must be one of the connected interns. Can you imagine the damage Lothrop, Krol, Yon, Amuso, Conant and one more could do having a majority vote on everything that came up? uh oh. Read the tea leaves folks.