all material on this blog is directed to members of the general public and is not intended to be read by my fellow Committee members, nor do I intend for any readers to convey such material directly or indirectly to my fellow Committee members.

Approved on 5.9.16 

Templeton Board of Selectmen 

 Town Hall Conference Room 

160 Patriots Road, East Templeton, Massachusetts 

 Monday, April 25, 2016, 6:30 p.m. 

Present: Board of Selectmen: John Columbus, Diane Haley Brooks, Doug Morrison, and Julie Richard; and Town Administrator, Robert Markel, were in attendance. Kenn Robinson was not in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. 

 Insurance Advisory Committee~ Bob explained that the state statute requires 7 employees and 1 retiree to be on this committee. Ms. Haley Brooks  made a motion to rescind the Board of Selectmen appointment to this committee. Mr. Morrison seconded the motion. The vote was 4 yes. This vote changes the makeup of the committee to be in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws, which supercede any Town Bylaws or Board of Selectmen votes/decisions. 

So, how did selectmen business become Advisory Committee business? Which kind of makes my point, I was informing the general public of this and at the same time correcting the bogus information that dave smart put out in a comment on a blog. This item was indeed selectmen business because again, it did not go to Town Meeting, it did not go to Advisory Committee nor did it go to the Planning Board. 

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed are those of Jeff Bennett and do not represent any other member of the Advisory Committee

posted by Jeff Bennett

all material on this blog is directed to members of the general public and is not intended to be read by my fellow Committee members, nor do I intend for any readers to convey such material directly or indirectly to my fellow Committee members.

Approved at meeting on 6.27.16 

 Templeton Board of Selectmen 

 Town Hall, 160 Patriots Road, East Templeton 

 Monday, June 13, 2016, 6:30 p.m. 

 Minutes of Meeting 

Present: Board of Selectmen: John Caplis, Diane Haley Brooks, Doug Morrison, John Columbus, and Julie Richard; and Town Administrator, Robert Markel, were in attendance. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. (five selectmen present out of five)


Police Chief contract-adjusted back to a 3-year contract as bob checked with town counsel and it is not legal to approve more than a 3-year contract unless it goes to town meeting. Ms. haley brooks made a motion that we send a letter regarding the tree at the housing authority to our state rep Susannah Whipps Lee and Senator Gobi signed by the chairman of the board. Mr. Morrison seconded the motion. The Vote was 5 yes. Ms. Richard abstained.

How is there 5 selectmen present, one abstains (does not vote) and you end up with five yes votes??

Did Bob Markel or Holly Young vote?

So it seems police chief Mike Bennett misspoke at Town Meeting back in May when he stated that the selectmen could appoint him for life if they wanted to. Seems like that would be up to Town Meeting rather than the selectmen. These are approved minutes! Which begs the question again, do selectmen read what they sign and do they understand what they vote on?

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed are those of Jeff Bennett and do not represent any other member of the Advisory Committee 

posted by Jeff Bennett

all material on this blog is directed to members of the general public and is not intended to be read by my fellow Committee members, nor do I intend for any readers to convey such material directly or indirectly to my fellow Committee members.




The comments part of this blog are turned off for now. Little dumb shit (DS) will now have to go elsewhere to rant. This will be in effect until the AG's office answers my several questions. The information will continue here, including criticism of the selectmen! Since I can only warn and cannot dictate to anyone what they may read, I cannot stop nor will I know if any other Advisory Committee member reads what I post.

For the record, no resignation from the Advisory Committee by the four named individuals as asked for the the Board of Selectmen. One would think they (the selectmen) would consider resigning since they have failed in over three years to hire a full time experienced and qualified Town Administrator. We know from the audit presentation, those same selectmen failed to hire/appoint a full time, experienced and qualified Treasurer/Collector. (even as one such individual was already employed by the Town, who is covering those duties now.


Disclaimer

Opinions expressed are those of Jeff Bennett and do not represent any other member of the Advisory Committee

posted by Jeff Bennett

all material on this blog is directed to members of the general public and is not intended to be read by my fellow Committee members, nor do I intend for any readers to convey such material directly or indirectly to my fellow Committee members.

If criticizing, questioning, commenting or talking about any government entity is political speech, it would be protected speech.

Something that came up during the Citizen's United Supreme Court case:

Majority opinion[edit]

Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court's opinion.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.^[25] The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."^[26]

Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.^[5] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals therefore, have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed are those of Jeff Bennett and do not represent any other member of the Advisory Committee 

posted by Jeff Bennett