Having watched the private road meeting about Laurel View Road, I think these citizens have had enough. I hope they do look into a lawsuit.  The Town Administrator  stating the Town has no money to do much if anything with regards to any kind of repairs on that road. Well, I recall the selectmen via the T/A let $190,000.00 plus ride over to next fiscal year which should mean a roll over to free cash (when certified by the DOR) as well as the T/A stating at an Advisory Committee meeting that he estimates certified free cash for Templeton this fall at about $800 thousand dollars. I think there would be some money to repair some issues on Laurel View Road. If the town has been plowing, sweeping and cutting brush and / or trees on the road for a number of years (over ten) and the town even repaired/rebuilt part of the road, maybe that would work for those residents in a court of law.

Besides, if the town does not plow the road, how would another town department do their job, Templeton light? These people have received a tax increase for services they probably will not have access to, fire and ambulance service.  Again, the Town was responsible for the permits, inspections and signing off for the building of this subdivision, so why now hold the residents responsible for the elected officials mis-steps. This has the appearance of T/A management and policy making, with the backing of selectmen. Time will tell how the selectmen feel on this issue. I hope the residents stand tall and tough and demand what is right.

I think I just felt a tremor of sorts, could that be the house of cards falling?

The Supreme Court protects even the unruliest of government critics from retaliation

By The Times Editorial Board

Jun 20, 2018 | 4:05 AM

 

Government officials who call the cops at public meetings to silence their critics can be held accountable — even if an arrest might be justified on other grounds. That was the reassuring conclusion of a ruling by the Supreme Court this week.

Monday’s 8-1 decision was a victory for Fane Lozman, the owner of a houseboat he kept at a marina owned by the city of Riviera Beach, Fla. As Justice Anthony Kennedy delicately put it in the majority opinion, Lozman had a “contentious” relationship with city officials. He filed a lawsuit alleging that an agreement the city made with developers violated Florida’s open-meeting law, and he testified more than 200 times, not always temperately, at City Council meetings.

In June of 2006, the council held a closed-door meeting in part to discuss Lozman’s lawsuit and, according to a transcript, one council member suggested that the city use its resources to “intimidate” Lozman and others who had filed suit. Later in the meeting, other members agreed on a “consensus” plan that Lozman said was designed to do just that. (The city maintained that the consensus was simply an agreement to invest resources in responding to lawsuits.)

Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »

Five months later, Lozman was speaking during the public comment portion of a City Council meeting when he mentioned the arrests of two “corrupt” politicians from other jurisdictions. The same council member who had talked about intimidating Lozman reacted by summoning a police officer, who arrested Lozman. According to the city, Lozman was arrested because he violated rules by discussing issues unrelated to the city and wouldn’t leave the podium. The state's attorney concluded that there was probable cause for the arrest, but decided to dismiss the charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Lozman then filed a federal civil rights claim arguing that his arrest was retaliation for the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights. He lost at the trial level after the judge instructed the jury that Lozman had to prove that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. A federal appeals court ruled against him on essentially the same grounds.

In reversing that ruling, the Supreme Court recognized an important reality: that a particular arrest might be justified by probable cause and yet still be part of a conspiracy by a local government to retaliate against its critics (including through selective enforcement of the law). Kennedy noted that what Lozman was alleging was “a premeditated plan to intimidate him in retaliation for his criticisms of city officials and his open-meetings lawsuit.”

The court didn’t conclude that such a conspiracy had actually existed; it sent the case back down to the lower courts to consider that question. Still, this decision is significant in providing a check on local officials who might seek to use the police to silence their critics.

enjoy the read, especially justsmartenough -

Recent Supreme Court ruling gives one hope; there is still a chance!

"Government officials who call cops at public meetings to silence their critics can be held accountable - even if an arrest might be justified on other grounds."

Seems a certain city council had suggested the council use city resources to intimidate someone or others who critique the council or who had filed a lawsuit against the council.

Thinking out loud, seems like master Fortes as well as other selectmen and the town administrator may have used Town resources (selectmen meetings, perhaps town council) to try and silence some outspoken citizens (who happen to also have served on the Town Advisory Committee) that were especially critical and asked many questions concerning the selectmen actions in running the Town.

I hope the message is clear and gets through; retaliation or planned intimidation resulting from citizen (s) questioning or writing criticisms of elected public officials is a violation of first amendment rights. Just because you volunteer, does not mean you give up or lose those rights.

 To encourage cities and towns to adopt zoning that supports sustainable housing production, the Department of Housing and Community Development created the Housing Choice Initiative. That program rewards communities that produce new housing and adopt best practices to promote smart growth with grants and technical assistance. Passage of H. 4290 will make it easier for communities to achieve Housing Choice designation.

How will Templeton do this and benefit from the above if the Town leaders, the selectmen, basically tell a neighborhood to screw off when it comes to their road, etc.? Is the Town Administrator's position supported by the selectmen? Was this their initiative and instructions to the Town Administrator, with regards to a Town policy or did this begin with the T/A? This does not appear to be a day to day item, rather a policy decision and I believe this is one of those items that will define these selectmen. Again, is it the position of the selectmen to "take" their money (residents of Laurel View Road) and give them nothing in return. Perhaps sheriff Fortes (check out pictures on his twitter account) wishes to govern like the sheriff of Nottingham.

Templeton Board of Selectmen
                                  Town Hall, 160 Patriots Road, East Templeton
                                                Monday, June 25, 2018, 6:30 p.m.

Agenda
1. Call the Meeting to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Public Comment

4. a. Meeting Minutes~ 6.11.18
b. Executive Session Minutes~ none

5. New Business: 
a. Action RE: Appointments & Introductions
b. Public Hearing RE: Transfer of Liquor License, Baldwinville Station
c. Action RE: Minuteman Club Bike Race/Town Common Use Permit
d. Action RE: Change of Owner on Class II License Transfer~The Car Works
e. Action RE: Preparation of FY ’19 MA CDBG Grant Funds
f. Action RE: Request for Release of Lien, 749 South Street
g. Action RE: Purchase of PD Cruiser & DPW One-Ton (ATM Article #20)

6. Old Business:
a. Action RE: Change of Manager on Liquor License, continued

7. Board & Staff Member Comments & Reports

8. Potential Request for Executive Session per MGL Ch. 30;
§21
9. Adjournment

The listing of Agenda items is those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent it is permitted by law.

So, who approved the building project now known as Laurel View Road? Who gave the permits for building those homes? Who owns the poles that carry the electric wires, etc., on that road?
I think that would be the Town of Templeton. Who has been plowing that road for a number of years? Who do the people who live on that road, pay taxes to? Again, that would be the Town of Templeton. If they are not even going to get one service, the plowing of the road, why should they pay taxes at all? So they can drive down Hubbardston Road? The Town of Templeton, through it's planning board failed to ensure that road was constructed properly and now the Town wants to hold the people who live on that road responsible for the Town's failings. On top of that, the Town wants to continue to charge these people fees for that privilege.

How about we, the people, hold the Town Administrator responsible for the recent financial issues, such as using free cash to back up a prior years budget? Lets have a Town Meeting in the fall and by way of citizen petition, move to eliminate the Town Administrator position. 

Laugh if you will, but if you by chance see a few employees from the highway and building & grounds department leave town employment, go ask why?

Now, on a public safety issue, I want to know what is the time table to repair Partridgeville Road?
Part of the road is very unsafe for public travel, especially for a school bus. A certified letter will be sent to the selectmen and Administrator, informing them of this so they will be aware of the situation.

We have skunks in the Senior Center, apparently down in the food pantry area and I think we may have a weasel problem in Town Hall. It is time for the selectmen to look out for the people, you know, the ones who elected selectmen to look out for them.