Traditional March Town Meeting Calendar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
ACIR Best Practices Guidelines - Public Meetings
ACIR Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Best Practices Guidelines Updated 1-28-2021 - Declaration of Public Health and Civil Preparedness Emergencies Public Meetings Public meetings are gatherings of public bodies - social and recreational gatherings, to which multiple Executive orders address are not. Accordingly, municipal officials should, when contemplating a municipal meeting, adhere to the Executive Orders (including remote access) addressing public meetings only. • Public meetings bring diverse groups of stakeholders together for a specific purpose. Public meetings are held to engage a wide audience in information sharing and discussion. They can be used to increase awareness of an issue or proposal, and can be a starting point for, or an ongoing means of engaging, further public involvement. When done well, they help build a feeling of community. (EPA) • The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) in a 2016 report (2016-R-0099) identified 149 instances in the statutes that required some form of public notification by a municipality. There are multiple instances where public notification is optional or where the statutes apply to a specific entity - including municipalities. - Three basic types: Regular, Special and Emergency. Statutory References of Note • Chapter 14 - Freedom Of Information Act, Sec. 1-200 - 1-242 Inclusive • Title II of the ADA which covers activities of State and local governments requires that State and local governments give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities .. • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. -
(I.) Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and The
(I.) MEČISLAV BORÁK (Czech Republic) The main features of occupation policy in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the rest of Protectorate of the Czech Lands Bohemia and When Nazi German troops occupied the interior of the Czech Lands in March 1939, the invasion marked the beginning of over six years of occupation which would last until the final days of the Second World War in Europe. On Moravia and the basis of a decree issued by Hitler, the occupying authorities established an entity named the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia; however, despite its proclaimed autonomy, the Protectorate was in fact entirely controlled by the post-war the German Reich, and the Reich’s actions proved decisive for the fate of the Czech nation. When researching this period, however, we should not neglect the fact that there were other parts of the Czech Lands which lay outside development of the the Protectorate throughout the war, as the Nazis had seized them from Czechoslovakia in the autumn of 1938, before the invasion of what remained of the country. This seizure was a consequence of the Munich Agreement, State – historical which enabled Nazi Germany to annex the border areas in the historical provinces of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia; the Agreement was forced upon the Czechoslovak Republic, and ultimately led to the state’s disintegration overview and demise. In September 1939 the Polish-occupied part of Těšín (Teschen/ Cieszyn) Silesia were taken by Germany; from this point on, the entire territory of the Czech Lands (both the border regions and the interior) came under the direct control of the Third Reich. -
The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. -
16 Things Every Citizen Should Know About Town Meeting
16 Things Every Citizen Should Know About Town Meeting By H. Bernard Waugh, Jr., with 2015 Update by Cordell A. Johnston This article, written by H. Bernard Waugh, Jr., then NHMA Legal Counsel, first appeared in Town and City magazine in February, 1990. It has been updated by Cordell A. Johnston, NHMA Government Affairs Counsel, where necessary. Although this article was first written before the adoption of “SB 2,” and therefore contemplated only the “traditional” form of town meeting, almost everything in it applies to SB 2 town meetings as well. * * * * * * We keep hearing it in New Hampshire: “Town meetings don’t work anymore.” “They’re an anachronism.” “They’re rigged.” “Nothing important is decided there.” But these are self- fulfilling prophesies. Local voter apathy feeds on itself. It’s not all apathy, either. This article assumes that part of the problem is good old honest ignorance: people who’ve moved in from places without town meetings; young people who grew up in families with no tradition of participation for them to absorb; people who for years have heard their cynical friends telling them they can’t make a difference and never bothered to find out the truth. This is for them, and you. Officials and others receiving this magazine should feel free to share or reproduce this article for other voters. An informed town is in everyone’s interest. In the end, nobody benefits from voter ignorance. 1. Every Voter Is a Legislator. Those quaint sayings about town government being a “pure democracy” are true! State law refers to the town meeting as the “legislative body” (RSA 21:47). -
Introduction to the Rules of Town Meeting
Introduction to the Rules of Town Meeting Southborough’s Town Meeting is an open town meeting in which all registered voters may participate. Town Meeting is a deliberative assembly, conducted via a defined process, charged with considering a maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and with full regard to the rights of the majority, strong minority, individuals, absentees and all of these together. In other words, we gather for the purpose of conducting the Town’s business thoughtfully and efficiently. AUTHORITY The three elements of authority at Town Meeting are a quorum of one hundred (100) registered voters or more, the Clerk and the Moderator. Of these three, the quorum is the most important. The Town Clerk is responsible for voter registration, certification of a quorum, setting up the hall and keeping the record of the proceedings. He may also officiate Town Meeting in the absence of a Moderator. The Moderator presides at and regulates the proceedings, decides all questions of order, and makes declarations of all votes. No one may speak on an issue without being recognized by the Moderator. It is the Moderator’s responsibility to approve the distribution of materials, and persons wishing to do so must seek his permission. The Moderator appoints Tellers and alternates for the purpose of counting votes of the meeting. THE WARRANT All matters to be considered at Town Meeting must be published in the Town Meeting Warrant, which is the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen. The primary and most important purpose of the Warrant is to notify voters in advance the nature of the business to be taken up at Town Meeting. -
KYT Guide to South Hadley Town Meeting
KNOW YOUR TOWN A Guide to South Hadley Town Meeting To educate and participate Founded in 1947 by Margaret Saunders, Know Your Town (KYT) is a nonpartisan organization that seeks to acquaint townspeople with the resources the Town of South Hadley has to offer and the various issues and functions of town government. KYT A Guide to South South Hadley Town Meeting A Guide to South Hadley Town Meeting I. HISTORY The Town Meeting has remained the basis of town government in New England and parts of New York State since early colonial times. South Hadley’s elected Town Meeting representatives have the privilege and responsibility of being involved in town government through their participation in Town Meeting. South Hadley changed its Town Meeting from an open form to a representative form in 1933. II. QUALIFICATIONS and ELECTION A. Any registered voter may run for election as a Town Meeting member from his/her own precinct. Nomination papers, obtained from and returned to the Town Clerk, must be signed by at least 50 registered voters. At least 10 of these registered voters must be from your own precinct. B. Town elections are held every year on the first Monday in April. One-third of the total number of precinct representatives is elected each year to three-year terms. C. Town Meeting members serve without pay. III. THE TOWN REPORT The Town Report gives a complete account of the previous year’s Town Meeting, including the budget and voting results for each article. The Report also includes similar information from any special town meeting, as well as the annual reports from department heads, boards, committees and commissions. -
Chapter 121. MEETINGS and ELECTIONS
MRS Title 30-A, Chapter 121. MEETINGS AND ELECTIONS CHAPTER 121 MEETINGS AND ELECTIONS SUBCHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS §2501. Applicability of provisions Except as otherwise provided by this Title or by charter, the method of voting and the conduct of a municipal election are governed by Title 21‑A. [PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. D, §2 (RPR).] 1. Clerk to perform duties of Secretary of State. When Title 21‑A applies to any municipal election, the municipal clerk shall perform the duties of the Secretary of State prescribed by Title 21‑A. [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. D, §2 (NEW).] 2. Qualifications for voting. The qualifications for voting in a municipal election conducted under this Title are governed solely by Title 21‑A, section 111. [PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. D, §2 (NEW).] 3. Determining and counting write-in votes. A municipality may choose the method of determining and counting write-in votes according to this subsection. Once a municipality has voted to accept the option under this subsection, the option applies to all municipal elections until the municipal officers hold a public hearing and the legislative body of the municipality votes to rescind the option at least 90 days before the next election of candidates by secret ballot. A. After the municipal officers hold a public hearing, at least 90 days prior to an election of candidates by secret ballot, the legislative body of a municipality may vote to be governed by the provisions of Title 21‑A, section 696, subsection 2, paragraph C and Title 21‑A, section 722‑A. -
A Global Comparison of Non-Sovereign Island Territories: the Search for ‘True Equality’
Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 43-66 A global comparison of non-sovereign island territories: the search for ‘true equality’ Malcom Ferdinand CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Gert Oostindie KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] (corresponding author) Wouter Veenendaal KITLV, the Netherlands Leiden University, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract: For a great majority of former colonies, the outcome of decolonization was independence. Yet scattered across the globe, remnants of former colonial empires are still non-sovereign as part of larger metropolitan states. There is little drive for independence in these territories, virtually all of which are small island nations, also known as sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJs). Why do so many former colonial territories choose to remain non-sovereign? In this paper we attempt to answer this question by conducting a global comparative study of non-sovereign jurisdictions. We start off by analyzing their present economic, social and political conditions, after which we assess local levels of (dis)content with the contemporary political status, and their articulation in postcolonial politics. We find that levels of discontent and frustration covary with the particular demographic, socio- economic and historical-cultural conditions of individual territories. While significant independence movements can be observed in only two or three jurisdictions, in virtually all cases there is profound dissatisfaction and frustration with the contemporary non-sovereign arrangement and its outcomes. Instead of achieving independence, the territories’ real struggle nowadays is for obtaining ‘true equality’ with the metropolis, as well as recognition of their distinct cultural identities. -
State of the County March 2, 2021
STATE OF THE COUNTY MARCH 2, 2021 Delivered by Chairman of the Board, Vito Chiesa 1 Good Morning my fellow members of the Board of Supervisors, CEO Hayes, County Counsel Boze, those who are in the chambers today and those who might be watching on television or over the internet. It is a privilege to present the State of the County Address for 2021. And what a humbling experience this is, during one of the most historic times in the history of our nation and the world. I want to offer thanks to our immediate past chair, former Supervisor Kristin Olsen. Her commitment left us a tremendous example of how to lead. I am also especially thankful for my time having served alongside Supervisor Jim DeMartini. Supervisor DeMartini, served the County selflessly year after year. He was a tireless, committed, and reliable leader with conviction. Supervisor Withrow…Terry, we have sat here together for years and every week I look forward to hearing your passion come through. Your drive to serve people in need - especially those with mental health or homelessness struggles - inspires me. And to the three new Supervisors serving the County, Supervisors Mani Grewal, Channce Condit, and Buck Condit, each of you comes to us with a history of public service and a passion for the community. Thank you for your commitment to the people we serve. I feel honored to serve alongside each of you. This past year saw a tremendous loss with the passing of Supervisor Tom Berryhill. Even if you did not know Tom personally, he was a friend to this community, defending and fighting for our region his entire career. -
Citizen's Guide to Town Meetings
Citizen’s Guide to Town Meetings An Important Message for all Massachusetts Town Residents The purest form of democratic governing is practiced in a Town Meeting. In use for over 300 years and still today, it has proven to be a valuable means for many Massachusetts taxpayers to voice their opinions and directly effect change in their communities. Here in this ancient American assembly, you can make your voice heard as you and your neighbors decide the course of the government closest to you. This booklet outlines the forms and procedures used in Massachusetts Town Meetings. As the Commonwealth's information officer, I urge you to read it and make use of it as you engage in the debates and votes that give shape to your Town Government. William Francis Galvin Secretary of the Commonwealth Introduction Each town has a different way of running its Town Meeting, depending on its bylaws or charter. Sometimes the customs and traditions are written down; sometimes they are not. This guide is a general outline of the Town Meeting Basics, some of the procedures may be used in one town and not another. This guide is not intended to be an all inclusive text, but a broad overview designed to encourage you to find out more and attend your own Town Meeting. If you have any questions regarding the specific procedures employed by your town, please contact your Town Clerk or Town Meeting Moderator. Questions and Answers about Town Meetings Town Meeting Basics What is a Town Meeting? A Town Meeting is both an event and an entity. -
Country Report: France
Country Report: France 2020 Update 2020 Update Acknowledgements & Methodology The 2020 update of this report was written by Laurent Delbos and Claire Tripier at Forum réfugiés – Cosi and edited by ECRE. Forum réfugiés-Cosi wishes to thank all those individuals and organisations who shared their expertise to contribute or check the information gathered during the research. Particular thanks are owed to many Forum réfugiés-Cosi colleagues who have shared their practical experience on the right of asylum in France – which have been key to feed concrete reality-checks and observations into this report; to the two lawyers who have taken the time to share their views on the French system; to the staff of France terre d’asile, the Anafé and the UNHCR Paris office for their expert and constructive feedback provided for the initial report and finally to ECRE for its support throughout the drafting process. Forum réfugiés- Cosi would also like to thank the European Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for co-financing its awareness-raising missions which allowed us to provide additional time to research and draft this report. The findings presented in this report stem from background desk research, interviews with field practitioners and lawyers, as well as feedback from French NGOs and the Paris-based UNHCR office and finally statistics shared by the French authorities. Caveat: In France, asylum policies – including reception procedures – are largely under prefectural execution. This review of practice is mostly based on observations in the departments of Ile de France, Rhône, Puy-de-Dôme, Haute- Garonne and Alpes-Maritimes. However, the conclusions presented in this report on the concrete implementation of asylum policies have been cross-checked and triangulated with observations of these practices in other regions and are supported by findings presented in other reports – be they official or drafted by civil society organisations. -
Town Meeting Handbook
TOWN MEETING HANDBOOK A GUIDE FOR BROOKLINE TOWN MEETING MEMBERS 2021 EDITION Parliamentary Guide Second Vote May May Rank Motions Debatable Amendable Required Required Reconsider Interrupt PRIVILEGED MOTIONS 1 Dissolve (adjourn sine die) Yes No No Majority No No 2 Adjourn to a fixed time Yes Yes Yes Majority No No 3 Point of no quorum No No No None No No 4 Fix t h e t i m e t o ( or a t )Yes Yes Yes Majority Yes No which to adjourn 5 Questions of privilege No No No None No Yes SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS 6 Lay on the table Yes No No 2/3 Yes No 7 The previous question Yes No No 2/3 No No 8 Limit or extend debate Yes No No 2/3 Yes No 9 Postpone to a time certain Yes Yes Yes Majority Yes No 10 Commit or refer Yes Yes Yes Majority Yes No 11 Amend or substitute Yes Yes Yes Majority Yes No 12 Postpone indefinitely Yes Yes No Majority Yes No INCIDENTAL MOTIONS Point of order No No No None No Yes Same rank as Division of a question Yes Yes Yes Majority No No motion Separate consideration Yes Yes Yes Majority No No out of Withdraw o r m o d i f y No No No Majority No No which it a motion arises Reconsider or rescind Yes * No Majority No No MAIN MOTIONS None Main motion Yes Yes Yes Varies Yes No None Take from the table Yes No No Majority No No None Advance an article Yes Yes Yes Majority Yes No * Debatable at the discretion of the Moderator Adapted from Town Meeting Time, Johnson, Trustman and Wadsworth, Massachusetts Moderators Association, 3rd Edition (2001).