Democracy only works if people inform themselves and participate. As I stated in a previous piece, I was attending two annual town meetings this year; the one in Wales and the one in our town, the town of Holland.

Here are a few interesting facts:
Holland has a population of 2407 with 1208 registered voters;
Wales has a population of 1566 with 878 registered voters.
In Wales 155 voters attended the annual meeting or 17.6%;
in Holland 66 voters attended or 5.5%.
The source of information for the counts of the population and registered voters in the two towns is the Commonwealth ’s website. For Wales, click here;
for Holland, click here! (I don ’t know who compiled the data for Holland and in what form it was submitted to the Commonwealth, but the document submitted by Holland is hardly legible, check it out.)

The meeting in Wales was so large, they had a concession stand in the back, selling cookies, sandwiches, water, and soda.
Another more important difference I noticed was, that Wales voters vote on important issues by secret ballot. Two ARTICLES were decided using this more “private” way of casting their vote. The procedure is provided for in the TOWN OF WALES BY-LAWS:

Section 13: At any Special or Annual Town Meeting, if fifteen (15) voters present request a secret ballot on any question, said vote shall be taken accordingly. In addition, a ballot vote may be called for on any question by a majority of the voters present and voting. (APPROVED 7/15/75).

Holland by-laws do not provide for such a “secret ballot.”

Yesterday’s annual town meeting was probably the last one ever with Earl Johnson facing the audience sitting on the table with other town officials.
I could not share state representative Todd Smola’s and state senator Stephen M. Brewer’s deep gratitude for Earl Johnson’s “service” to the public.
After their speeches, some people got up and joined the Johnson clan follower’s standing ovation.

Board of selectmen member James Wettlaufer’s introduction to this year’s annual town meeting followed. Wettlaufer praised the financial health of our town; this was necessary to bring the voters into the right mood to borrow $172,525 for a new dump truck (ARTICLE #22), to appropriate $15,000 for a used SUV for the Fire Department (ARTICLE #23); to appropriate $35,000 for a new police cruiser (ARTICLE #24); to transfer $93,000 into a newly established “Roadway Improvements Stabilization” fund (ARTICLE #26); and to transfer $100,000 to the “General Stabilization” fund.
Just two years ago, Wettlaufer stated in a letter to the editor published on January 31, 2008:

The alternative to passing an override will be to reduce town and school services by an amount currently projected to be $250,000. Perhaps we should consider whether this is cost cutting or a lifestyle change for our town. Should we combine two grades at the elementary school? Should we stop maintaining private roads? Should we go back to a one man police department?

How can we believe this man anything anymore?
Wettlaufer also falsely claimed that the town is in compliance with the recommendations included in the report titled “Financial Management Review,” issued by the Department of Revenue (DOR) in October of 2008.
Nothing could be further form the truth! To this day, the town is still not incompliance with many of the 15 “Financial Management Recommendations” outlined on pages 12-23. The first recommendation on the long list under this title is:

We recommend that the town separate the duties of the board of assessors from those of selectmen, and make the assessor’s positions appointed.

Emphasis added by the DOR. See page 14 of the report.
Contrary to implementing the recommendations included in the DOR report, Earl Johnson ran for re-election for the seat on the Board of Assessors just one year ago; Christian Petersen is still on the board as well.

Three representatives of HAP traveled to Holland with computers, projector and collapsible screen to sell their plan to build 20 units of low income housing for the disabled and seniors one more time.
Again, the $5,280,000 project was doomed to fail.
One of the “handouts” for the taking as you entered the Elementary School Gym advised voters to accept the three ARTICLES (#3, #4, #5) on the town warrant because they were “a necessary step in moving forward with the senior housing project.” Arguments were made in favor and against the proposal by different voters. It was exhilarating to witness democracy in action!

Lynn Arnold, chair person of the Planning Board, had many concerns during the public hearing on this matter back on March 9, 2010. I was disappointed that she had nothing to say as the only visible change made to the plan was the change to installing three wells instead of one well. The same goes for Fred Beaulieu who acted as chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals during the public hearing of March 9, 2010.
It may surprise you that the two, Lynn Arnold and Fred Beaulieu, are husband and wife. As you know, Lynn Arnold is running for the position of tax collector, (what about our system of checks and balances?)

It was apparent that the result of the ensuing votes shocked the three members of the Board of selectmen.
All three ARTICLES (#3, #4, #5) were voted down 2:1 and the disconnect between the three members of the selectboard and the majority of the community was obvious.
The moment of truth triggered flashbacks in my mind to the day when the voters refused to follow the “leaders” and overwhelmingly voted against the proposed raise of the tax levy limit back in the spring of 2008.

The low income senior housing project was initiated two years ago and substantial amounts of funds were wasted.
John Appleton wrote in a piece published in the “Republican” back on September 11, 2008:

Holland has been working on this project in conjunction with Paul R. Bracciotti, a senior planner with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission... In 2005, the town received a $25,000 grant from the state to study the need for housing for elderly people.... Preliminary engineering studies indicate construction is feasible and that a septic system and well could be installed on the property.

When confronted with the fact that the project infringes with no less than 16 provisions of bylaws and regulations in the proposed form, and furthermore can only be built with two additional and necessary easements (ARTICLE #3 and #4), HAP representatives pointed out that the selectboard suggested to build the low income senior housing project on the parcel that is way to small.
One would hope that engineers that had conducted the $25,000 study did consider bylaws and regulations and did come to a different finding than “construction is feasible).
If they did, who is responsible for advising them that bylaws and regulations would not be followed in this case? Who decided to go forward despite the fact that the project could not be realized by following the rule of law?
Someone is responsible for the waste of the $25,000 spent on the study. Who is the responsible individual?

ARTICLE #20 was seeking the voters approval to authorize the town to compensate the Board of Assessors and the Assistant Assessor with the amount of $16 for fieldwork and data collection per parcel in the upcoming revaluation and certification process. Massachusetts General Law mandates towns to assess every property so that the assessment reflects the actual value within 10%. For this reason, every town needs to revaluate and certify all properties according to a schedule.
Earl Johnson’s claim that Vision Appraisal would charge $35 for the same, more than twice as much, is clearly contradicting the number of $16 to $18 that was quoted to me over the phone.
Everybody familiar with Earl Johnson’s past history as assessor and selectmen ( Johnson LandGate, D.D.111 report) just to mention two) had to be offended and nauseated by the proposal. The notion is as ludicrous as the notion that Earl Johnson was not comfortable with his buddy Kevin Gleason to be chief of police.
Since the town contracted Vision Appraisal, that aspect of Town Government was running more or less smooth, that will be a thing of the past, watch and wait... ARTICLE #20 passed.

The last ARTICLE on the warrant, ARTICLE #28, was allegedly not in conformance with the law. It was not our town counsel, Vincent McCaughey, who was sitting to the left of Kristin LaPlante, who pointed it out, it was Howard Five. The ARTICLE would have restated the “right to farm” which is a constitutional right in Massachusetts under ARTICLE 97 of the Constitution. “right to farm” bylaw. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) has a PDF document on its website that describes the objectives of the bylaw. The byaw has been adopted by at least 23 Massachusetts cities and towns so far.
Wettlaufer was quick to make a motion to table the ARTICLE and the meeting and moved to adjourne the meeting at 8:46 p.m.

May 26, 2010, Peter Frei

Annual Town Meeting of 2010.