September 13, 2023, a dog hearing is scheduled for selectmen meeting, how can selectmen with a straight face have a hearing to decide if a dog and/or owner violated or did not follow a town bylaw when the selectmen and other town officials do not follow the town bylaws themselves. Town bylaw states the selectmen shall appoint a town counsel in June, yet the chair and the town administrator waited until July to appoint town counsel. This means they either do not know the bylaws or chose to ignore them. Since the selectmen are law breakers themselves, they have no right to sit in judgment of anyone else, so I hope they do not bring up town bylaws and by not following the bylaw, nor their own policy, they need to pay up the $300.00 per selectman fine, that is another town bylaw under non-criminal disposition.
They broke the COA bylaw on appointments until notified.
ReplyDeleteThey broke the Town Counsel bylawsssssss I think maybe 4?
Any others?
Policies are just not followed, period. If, by chance, policy and Templeton documents meet its purely accidental.
Remember this. Every bylaw violation most likely violates a policy and many policy violations violate a bylaw.
As an example just look to our social media policy in Section 5 below. Now ask how our town officials HR 4420 Opposition letter doesn't violate it
Section 5
Limited Public Social Media Forums (in part states)
Comments containing any of the following forms of content shall not be permitted on any type of town social media by a town official, or on a Limited Public Social Media Forum by a member of the public, and are subject to removal, in whole or in part, by authorized or appointed town officials:( relevant examples given)
• Comments in support of or opposition to political campaigns or candidates;
This is your town people. Your paying for this type of service. It's up to you!
Selectman just held a public Hearing under MGL 140 section 146 which states:
ReplyDeleteSection 146: License valid throughout state; removal of dog into another town or city
Section 146. A license duly recorded shall be valid throughout the commonwealth, except that, in the case of the permanent removal of a dog into another town within the commonwealth, the owner or keeper thereof shall, within thirty days after such removal, present the original license and tag of such dog to the clerk of the town or city to which such dog has been removed and the clerk shall take up the same and issue to such owner or keeper a transfer license and a tag for such dog upon payment of an amount to be determined by the city or town which shall be retained by the clerk unless otherwise provided by law. The provisions of section one hundred and thirty-seven relative to the form and furnishing of licenses and tags shall apply to licenses and tags issued under this section.
As you will probably be wondering, "What does that have to do with a Dangerous Dog? Well, nothing really.
MGL Chapter 140 Section 157 relates to Dangerous Dogs. So now what about the hearing the public just watched of citizens questioned regarding the wrong legal basis.
The selectman issued orders relating a dangerous dog based on 140 section 146 which has nothing to do with it. So now what happens if that citizen laughs at them? What is those citizens file a complaint regarding their rights? This is exactly how lawyers stay in business. Sloppy process by government officials lacking accountability.
They held a Public Hearing over 2 different nights, multiple witnesses and thanks to "who" does it all really amount to a hill of beans..............
For "Annon"........solution..... Require people read and initial documents they create to determine where the problem lies for training or termination.
DeleteWhen incident does happen, quickly acknowledge, investigate, retrain or replace and repair damages.