I'm trying to make some sense of the 61-vote defeat of the debt exclusion.
But I really can't see blaming the state.
I wouldn't want the city sending out any material explaining the tax increase. I'd rather my tax dollars go toward city services, not campaign literature. Furthermore, do we really want to count on the votes of people who close the voting booth curtain without even knowing the particulars of the tax increase?
That's why we needed to have a citizen group spearhead this thing. Yes, that likely would have invited opposition, but that's the point. Let's argue the merits of this thing, take a vote and move forward.
I do not know if this is the case, but it's been suggested the mayor felt a full-scale confrontation would doom the measure. It might have, but at least we'd know for sure what the people wanted.
Now we have no clue. The mayor seems to think a summary on the ballot or mailing would have given 62 people enough information to support the measure. Maybe so.
Maybe this low-key campaign--during which the mayor met with many groups--got closer to passage than frontal attack. But one could argue just as easily that a clear picture would have driven more people to vote against the proposal, particularly in this economic climate.
I guess the 61-vote defeat is an appropriate ending to this weird campaign.
2 comments:
If the City of newburyport would adopt the provision of Medicare part B then maybe voters will feel that the City has made efforts. They will owe a penalty fee for each retiree that gets enrolled because they have waited so long to adopt this. Retirees in Newburyport are not required to enroll when they turn 65- they can stay on the benefit rich plan for active employees. This cost an extreme amount of money and for who??? Moak may not even be aware of this as he has focused on the health plan unsuccessfully. All the employees don't want this as they will retire someday. most surrounding cityies and Towns adopted this in 2005 to save money. It's a no brainer!!!
Review the 1978 MA Supreme Judicial Court Case - Anderson v. City of Boston. In Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 1069 (1979),
the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that public resources may not be used to influence voters concerning
a ballot question. You can read more about the prohibited and allowable use of public resources at this link: http://www.mass.gov/ocpf/legaldoc/IB-92-02.pdf
It may be boring reading, but it certainly clarifies the issue. Tom, your gut feeling is correct.
Post a Comment