Showing posts with label Voices of Franklin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voices of Franklin. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Voices of Franklin: NDAA - What Would Nelson Mandela Do?

Rich Aucoin included me on this email:

Question: Are your elected officials doing what Nelson Mandela would do on NDAA's indefinite detentions? 
Are they honoring their constitutional Oaths of Office by standing up for equal justice and due process under the law? Or are they violating the sacred trust we placed in them to protect our most basic civil rights? 
Please take two minutes to read PANDA Massachusetts' latest news letter below.

Share
Tweet
Forward to Friend

NDAA: What Would Nelson Mandela Do?

Courage is not the absence of fear; it is inspiring others to move beyond it.
-- Dr. Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela's bold political activism changed the world. His willingness to challenge the unjust policies of his national government reminds us of the bravery and personal sacrifice that gave rise to our own nation. By standing up against unequal justice in South Africa, Mandela set a timeless example for all of modern humanity. But let us remember that the very ideas and actions that made Nelson Mandela a human rights icon also once resulted in the U.S. branding him a terrorist.
That's right, prominent political figures in the United States branded peace negotiator Mandela a "terrorist" for his justice activism. And yet now we are expected to believe that the U.S. government is somehow infallible when it does such branding today. Under the 2012 NDAA, anyone branded a terrorist, including American citizens, can be presumed guilty and imprisoned for life based on accusation alone, deprived even of the kind of sham trial that Mandela was given in Apartheid South Africa.
So it is ironic that over the next week we will be hearing American politicians of every political stripe gushing with pride and praise for Dr. Mandela's resistance to tyranny. It begs the question: how many of these politicians would have defended Mandela's belligerent acts against the state when he was actually committing them? How many would have locked him up and thrown away the key without due process, NDAA-style?
What Would Mandela Do?
Based on what we know of Nelson Mandela's political activism and the terrible price he paid for it, it is easy to know which side he would take on this question of defending equal due process rights vs. allowing indefinite detentions. Our peaceful grassroots movement to lawfully block NDAA detentions thus provides a useful litmus test for determining who in Massachusetts politics truly possesses Mandela's moral convictions  - and who doesn't.
From his career after prison, we know that politician Mandela would not agree with public officials who sit by idly and accept NDAA's injustices; those who claim it is someone else's job to stand up for basic rights, not mine.
So let us see who in Massachusetts politics has taken a stand against NDAA.
Congressman Jim McGovern has been the strongest leader so far. Besides working tirelessly in Congress to end NDAA's indefinite detention provisions, he has also written in support of PANDA's civil rights advocacy to restore due process at the local level. And to their credit, every other member of the Massachusetts delegation has at least voted to repeal NDAA's unconstitutional sections.
At the state level, Representative Ryan Fattman is another elected official standing up for the right of trial by jury. He supports PANDA's pending State House legislation blocking NDAA detentions in the Commonwealth and has urged town leaders in his district to pass local anti-NDAA resolutions.
At the local level, the people of Webster and Oxford have successfully blocked NDAA, blazing the trail for civil rights leaders in other Bay State communities.
Dr. Jill Stein of the Green-Rainbow Party has spoken out against the NDAA, as have numerous organizations, such as the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Worcester Tea Party together with Occupy Worcester, the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts (LAMA), the Massachusetts chapter of Veterans for Peace (VFP), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and others.
It is time for Massachusetts legislators and local officials to do what Nelson Mandela would do.
Contact your local and state officialsTell them to join the people of Massachusetts in restoring the Right of due process.

Share
Tweet
Forward to Friend
Please forward this newsletter to friends and family.  Get involved!
Click here to sign up for PANDA Newsletters
www.pandaunite.org

www.ndaa2012.us



Copyright © 2013 PANDA Massachusetts, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you are a member of the PANDA Massachusetts State Team.

Our mailing address is:
PANDA Massachusetts
Northfields Neighborhood
Salem, MA 01970

Add us to your address book
unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Voices of Franklin: Kristen Parker - Tri-County teachers working without contract


Dear Parent(s), Contractors, Members and Friends,

I’m not sure if you are aware that Tri-County Tech Voc teachers are working without a contract right now. Our teachers’ association has historically always bargained in good faith with the school committee. Our negotiations team has been working since January to settle the contract and even with a mediator from the state, we are not making progress. We continue to do what is best for our students, and we want to settle the contract so that we can continue to do just that. We are asking for your support and to join us on either November 20th @ 5:30 in the lobby of TC, November 22nd from 3pm-5pm (Three different locations, Franklin, Wrentham or Millis) or December 3rd @ 5pm in Lobby of TC. Please feel free to ask others to join in our fight. Can we count on your support? 
Please email me at tgjparker@yahoo.com if you have any questions or if you would like to volunteer at any times mentioned above and I will get you in contact with someone from Tri-County. We could really use your support to show the school committee members that the public is behind us.

Thank You,
Kristen

Monday, November 4, 2013

Voices of Franklin: Powderly -> Appoint the Treasurer/Collector Position


Friends and Colleagues

Tomorrow is election day, and I respectfully ask you to VOTE YES on Question 1 to make the Treasurer/Collector position in Franklin an appointed position, not an elected position as it currently stands.

Moving the position to an appointed position does not indicate a loss of faith or trust in the voters.  The move recognizes that Franklin has grown to a $100 million+ business, with complex debt management and cash flows, and that an election does not necessarily allow one to properly vet candidates for such a critical position.  The process for hiring our next Treasurer/Collector should include interviews, references, requirements for certifications, prior experience, assessment of ability to work with other Franklin departments, at a minimum.  Indeed, the likes of General Motors or IBM or Pepsi do not choose their CFO based on a poll of their staff because although their staff may be well-informed and well-intentioned, the dynamics of an election do not automatically mean that a rigorous full review of the candidates takes place.

Please note that our current Treasurer/Collector, Jim Dacey, has lobbied for a change to an Appointed position for years.  He has done a phenomenal job for the Town and is the one most qualified to comment on the rigors of the position.  Please read his editorial below for his reasoning, and note that last week Milford approved by Town Meeting this same change.


Please support the Treasurer/Collector position as Appointed for the long-term financial health and stability of Franklin.

Thank you.


Tina Powderly


Saturday, August 24, 2013

Voices of Franklin: FRANKLIN HEIGHTS: Family Community Dream or Foreclosure Nightmare?


The Franklin Heights development is a Townhome/Condo Community located off of Lincoln St. My family purchased our town home in May 2008, at that time there were two townhome buildings with 4 units per building on the property. We were told at the time of sale there were plans for a beautiful family community and 109 townhomes were to be built in two phases. 
Soon after our sale, we noticed that things weren’t happening the way that we were told they would. Since our development was not complete, our association was run by the Trustee, the current builder. He had the control over how our condo fees were distributed and we were unaware of how much money was not being used as we were told until the development went into foreclosure and we were told that our condo reserve was gone. During this time, we had no landscaping or road maintenance. Our yards were literally overgrown, there were big mosquito infested holes from where construction had begun but not finished. From what I understand, the Condo association is required to have a 10% reserve in the budget for units to be sold and re-sold. We have never, in the 5 years that I have lived here, been given a budget or statement of how our fees are distributed. Our fees were quickly raised to make up for this reserve that is needed. We are threatened with liens on our property if we are delinquent on payment. After the foreclosure, we were told (through our own research through the Registry of Deeds and demands for information from realtors on the property) that there was a new property developer taking over our development. The new developer has since only developed the 18 unit complex located on the property that was abandoned for years. It took our own research through the Registry of Deeds to find out that a member of this new company was the new Trustee of our association. He has told us that his hands are tied in relation to the existing townhome units. He will not answer my emails or talk to me about my concerns. He will only send impressions of legal action if I continue to speak out with my opinions. We are told by Continuing Care (Property Management Company that handles our association money) that there is no money in our budget for road/driveway maintenance, recycling, and regular maintenance of our units. This is all outlined as the responsibility of the Trustee/Association in our condo documents. All townhome units pay month HOA fees, some units as high as $310/month. Just recently, homeowners have begun to use their own money to make repairs to prevent damage to our cars and provide safe spaces for our children. 
My mission is to raise awareness about this development in hopes that drawing attention will force the “board” and “association” and “Trustee” to start running this neighborhood as a true association with unit owner involvement and proper maintenance of our units and roads. 
Thank you,
Rachel Brancato


Voices of Franklin guidelines
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/03/introducing-voices-of-franklin.html

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Voices of Franklin: What to do about the conditions on Ledge St?

Rob Crummet lives on Ledge St. Yes Ledge St, you might recognize it if you have seen the recently published road condition report. It is #2 on the list.

Scroll through his letter and view the pictures of the #2 road in Franklin.





When will Ledge St be fixed? Rob would like to know.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Voices of Franklin: Boston Globe Headline Misleads Public in Dookhan Case

The Boston Globe published an article on January 9th titled Ex-chemist's Husband Warned She Was a Liar.

What is the factual basis for such a defamatory headline?

Let us examine closely.

Notice the missing words "government claims" or "allegedly" in the headline. For it is well-established that a large percentage of news consumers will scan headlines quickly to get the gist of a given day's news. And the Boston Globe surely knows this.

More importantly, notice the glaring error within the article itself.

Globe reporter Adrian Ballou states, incorrectly, that Surren Dookhan "has not spoken publicly" about his wife's legal problems.

In fact, Mr. Dookhan has spoken publicly. On August 30th he told Fox 25 that he and his wife maintain her innocence and that they fear she is being scapegoated:
So, rather than relying on an easily searchable first-hand public statement by Mr Dookhan about his wife's situation, the Boston Globe is relying instead on third-hand hearsay provided by Annie Dookhan's accusers.

To demonstrate the corrupting effect of Ballou's reporting error, on the same morning's Fox 25 edition of "Let It Rip," several anchor-pundits were discussing Ballou's article and puzzled hard over why Mr. Dookhan would be sticking by his wife even after telling a prosecutor that she is a chronic liar. It never occurred to any of the Fox 25 newscasters that perhaps the reason why Mr Dookhan is sticking by his wife is because of what he had previously told their very own news station: he believes she is being scapegoated!

Now let's dig a bit deeper. What, exactly, is the source of the information being relied upon by the Globe in reporting Mr. Dookhan's opinion of his wife? Answer: a purported interview that was allegedly given to Dookhan's accusers by a former assistant DA, one George Papachristos, who resigned his position in October despite his insistence -- and the insistence of all his superiors up the entire chain -- that he had done nothing wrong.

Papachristos reportedly claimed that the reason for his October resignation had been merely that he did not want to be a distraction to the investigation. Sorry, George; the distraction horse left the barn the moment the Boston Globe printed your name three months ago, as evidenced now by its being trotted out again and again in the Globe's ongoing conviction of Ms Dookhan in the court of public opinion. Question: Who of any integrity resigns from a career that he reportedly cherished despite having done nothing wrong? And what boss accepts such a resignation? Surely any reasonable observer can see that such a resignation might, itself, raise more than a few eyebrows.

So here we have yet another biased headline about "rogue chemist" Annie Dookhan which relies on the testimony of a demonstrably questionable witness who "believes" that a few texts sent to his cell phone in 2009 "appeared" to have been sent by Mr. Dookhan, all while ignoring a first-hand public statement by Mr. Dookhan himself.

But here's where things get interesting. Another former assistant DA publicly scolded the Globe in October for portraying Papachristos's and Dookhan's purported friendship as inappropriate. Former Norfolk County Deputy District Attorney Matt Connolly wrote in his blog on October 18th:

"There is not one scintilla of evidence that Papachristos did anything wrong that I have seen. I don't know where the Globe gets off labeling his activities as 'unauthorized.' I wonder, unauthorized by whom? It would be nice if the Globe was more specific."
"There is nothing wrong with a prosecutor being friendly or having a relationship with a witness. It is quite common for prosecutors to socialize with witnesses who will testify... It is the nature of the job to develop these friendships..."

Okay, so, according to expert witness Connolly, such relationships are not only routine but essential, provided of course that no inappropriate favors are being exchanged between prosecutor and witness. Thus, in light of Connolly's informed insights, it appears that the state is trying to have it both ways with Papachristos: By absolving him of any wrongdoing on one hand while accepting his resignation on the other, prosecutors, politicians and the media can simultaneously perpetuate the public myth that Dookhan somehow behaved unethically with Papachristos while also shielding him from any legal liability of his own. Heads, the state wins; tails, Annie Dookhan loses.

The Boston Globe's pattern of wheeling out Papachristos's "unauthorized" friendship with Dookhan, rather than highlighting and questioning the uber-convenience of the state's two-faced handling of his weird resignation, frankly smacks of an agenda. Particularly given the timing of Ballou's erroneous story, dropping coincidentally on the same day that Dookhan was to be arraigned for obstruction of justice in two additional counties.

Sadly, it is becoming clearer every day that justice is indeed being obstructed in this case. And the media's flagrant bias and sloppy reportage is a major part of it.

Bottom line: we can either base our understanding of Mr Dookhan's opinion of his wife on his obvious devotion to her and by taking him at his word. Or we can rely on demonstrably false and shamelessly unfair media coverage that relies exclusively on the state's made-for-TV propaganda and the third-hand account of a dubious character whose own behavior raises serious questions.

Rich Aucoin
Franklin


Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Voice of Franklin: Where is the Presumption of Innocence for Annie Dookhan?


Inquiring minds are asking: Why is a longtime civil libertarian like myself defending Annie Dookhan, a state chemist accused by the Boston Globe of cavorting with state prosecutors who build their careers on the backs of nonviolent drug defendants in the racist war on drugs? Answer: I am not defending anyone. Rather, I am defending things; namely western jurisprudence and its central pillar, the presumption of innocence.

The recent furor over Dookhan's loosened curfew demonstrates that she has already been found guilty in the media, long before her side of the story has been aired in a public trial. Too many observers seem eager to jump ahead in this case to the punishment phase. But let us remember that everything we have been told so far about Annie Dookhan, including the idea that she "admitted to the allegations," has been the product of her government accusers and of shockingly biased media coverage. There is a major difference between an accused person admitting to a set of allegations and her state accusers claiming she's admitted to them -- particularly when, as in this case, several of those accusing Dookhan stand to benefit personally if their version of events is to be believed.

It is ironic that those condemning Dookhan are essentially doing to her what so many are claiming she did to drug defendants: presume guilt and unjustly convict. Perhaps Annie's pre-judgers would prefer she be shipped off to G'tmo for a quick waterboarded confession so we can get this case over with already. But that is not how true justice works.

If by some miracle it is still possible for Annie Dookhan to receive a fair trial, and if she is legitimately found guilty, then she will of course deserve to be punished. For now let us be careful to remember that she is entitled to the same presumption of innocence that we all would hope for ourselves or our loved ones if we are ever accused of a crime.

Rich Aucoin
Franklin

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Voices of Franklin: Jim Hill - The People's Rights Amendment

The proposed agenda for the Town Council meeting May 16 was changed to remove the resolution (Res 12-33) referenced. There was discussion on the item but that was all.

You can find the agenda here
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/05/franklin-ma-town-council-agenda-may-16.html 

Links to the People's Right website
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/05/support-of-peoples-rights-amendment.html 

and the discussion summary here
http://www.franklinmatters.org/2012/05/live-reporting-peoples-right.html 



Jim Hill was the second citizens to speak on this topic. Jim provided his comments for publication here after the meeting.

I respectfully disagree that this is a partisan issue. Senators McCain (republican) and Feingold (democrat) introduced legislation (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act also known McCain-Feingold) to reverse the effects of Citizens United but corporate lobbyists got involved and the legislation was blocked. John McCain was later quoted in reference to lobbyists that he’d rather be doing something else but “This is the water we swim in.”

The Supreme Court Decision in favor of Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission gave “artificial entities” the same 1st amendment free speech rights as living, breathing people. As a result corporations have an unlimited right to pour millions into political campaigns through superpacs. Not only can American corporations influence political outcomes but also international conglomerates. I don’t want corporations and foreigners controlling political outcomes. How un-America is that! This is not what our forefathers had in mind. The constitution was written to protect the rights of living, breathing persons, not corporations. Please pass ”The people’s Rights Amendment Resolution” to protect the people’s first amendment rights. I would be proud of my Town of Franklin if you vote in support of this. Thank you.



Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Voices of Franklin - Bill Glynn - Misinformation Campaign Manipulates Senior Citizens

The FHS vote is a rare situation when self-interest (to maintain lowest possible taxes) aligns with the community’s interest (to tend to the community’s needs). The high school problems are well documented: the entire facility must be made accessible to those with disabilities and the failing infrastructure must be upgraded to make the building safe and bring it up to code (these two issues alone will cost tens of millions of dollars in renovations). Franklin must decide either to pay $47M of the $104M cost to build a new school or 100% of the $86+M cost to renovate the existing school. The new school option is the taxpayers’ cheapest option and provides the best outcome. Since a “do nothing keep all my money” option doesn’t exist, a “NO” vote will cost Franklin $86+M instead of the $47M cost of a “YES” vote. It should be an easy decision.

Back when the current high school was built, there was no proposition 2.5, so the community probably looked at multiple options when deciding to build the current school – just like the building committee did during this analysis. There may have been a high-end option as well as a low-end option and perhaps middle of the road options too. The point is, the decision had to be analyzed and folks had to choose between competing goals such as: lowest-cost, best-value, maximum-benefit, etc. My guess is that their decision was more heavily-weighted toward the lowest-cost end of the spectrum. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have a school with all of the facilities embedded in concrete walls (a cheap way to build, but extremely expensive to renovate and upgrade) and we would have a handicapped-accessible school with elevators. These two items in particular answer the question posed by some, “how come Tri-County is OK?” The answer is directly linked to what was bought: Franklin didn’t buy a Mercedes or a Toyota Camry and so the end result was a school with a relatively short lifespan that was not designed to be upgradable.

In the current situation, the state (MSBA) decided between the options first and determined which option (if any) it would choose to fund. First, the MSBA funds school projects on the basis of need; the higher the need, the closer to the top of the list you get. So, unless you’re thinking that the state just has more money than it knows what to do with, you have to agree that FHS must have some level of need in order to be near the top of the list. The state chose the model school option because the costs are very deterministic (the model has been built several times so cost overruns are minimized) and the state wasn’t looking for the lowest-cost option (renovation was about 85% of the cost of a new model school). Rather, the state was looking more along the lines of value for the money being spent – in other words, a higher return on their investment because they don’t want us coming back in 15 years. That’s why we’re able to have the option to get a new model school for less money (shared cost) than a renovation (we pay the full cost because the state won’t throw good money after bad).

So, if there is clearly a need to fix issues at the high school and that need is so great that the cost is roughly 85% of the cost to build a completely new school as well as rip down and dispose of the old school and we can get the new school by paying only 40% of the cost, then what’s the problem? While I am sensitive to the issue that there are some folks facing financial difficulty, the biggest problem is there are many more people who don’t like to deal with inconvenient data; they’d rather invent their own data and invent their own options and they believe that a “NO” vote gets them their invented option. The reality is there is no option that says ignore the situation, do nothing, spend no money and continue on as though the $1M or so and multiple years the town spent on engineers to analyze the situation never happened. Go back to sleep, it’s just a bad dream. Toward that goal, there are those who have been intentionally deceiving the Franklin taxpayer and preying upon the vulnerabilities of Franklin’s cost-sensitive senior community in particular with a disinformation campaign claiming there are no problems – just say “NO” and all will be well. If they are successful, they will have spared the Franklin taxpayers a $47M bill by convincing them to opt for an $86+M bill.

Although masterful in its execution, this disinformation campaign is repugnant by design. Is it effective? Only if you fall victim to the “all’s well” fantasy or you fail to vote and help protect yourself and the community from those who are victimized.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Voices of Franklin: Sean Donahue - Misinformation Corrected

First, let me start this letter by saying there are Franklin residents who have taken the time to ask questions and learn the facts about the new Franklin High School project and have still decided they are against this project. Whatever their reason may be, they are entitled to that opinion.


Unfortunately, however, there are still many people who are basing their opposition to the project on misinformation, or much worse, know the facts but are purposely spreading false information to try to get other residents to vote no. This has been evidenced in some of the recent letters against the school printed in the Milford Daily News and Franklin Matters.


When Franklin voters cast their ballot on Tuesday, they deserve to have accurate information and should be making an educated decision based on what’s true rather than the recent campaign of misinformation. Those making false claims and exaggerations are doing a disservice to their fellow citizens.


First of all, the claim that a vote “yes” is giving the town a blank check is simply untrue. The ballot question does not contain the price because of state regulations (http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dls/publ/misc/prop2.pdf ), but the cost is still clearly defined by the Town Council’s binding resolution at $104 million with the state contributing $57 million and the town paying $47 million. This resolution can be found right on the Town Clerk’s website  attached to the information on the election (http://town.franklin.ma.us/Pages/FranklinMA_Clerk/HighSchoolOverride.pdf ).


And yes, that price is binding because of state law, which makes clear that “even though a dollar amount is not included in the referendum question approved by the voters for these projects, the exclusion is not unlimited and does not necessarily cover all cost increases.  An exclusion covers the debt service costs on the borrowing amount  authorized or contemplated for the described purpose or purposes at the time of the referendum vote.  Debt service on any borrowing above that fixed amount is not excluded unless (1) it is a modest amount attributable to inflation, new regulatory requirements or minor project changes, or (2) another exclusion is approved by the voters.” (http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dls/publ/igr/2002/2002-101.pdf )


In other words, outside of a modest increase due to “inflation, new regulatory requirements or minor project changes”, an increase in cost would require another debt exclusion to be brought before the town. Considering the $104 million total price ($47 million cost to the town) includes $4.5 million in contingencies, it is quite likely the high school project could come in under budget as many of the recent model school projects across the state have.


The total price also includes the cost to replace all the fields and tennis courts, furnish the new building, all the new technology, remove the old high school, and everything else needed for this to be a turn-key project. These costs are NOT in addition to the $104 million total price ($47 million cost to the town) as some have implied.


Another recent letter continually referred to the cost to a homeowner as an additional $360 per year. That is only true if your property is valued at $486,500. For the average homeowner ($352,700), the cost is $260 per year until the debt is paid off in 2040. To calculate the effect on your property tax bill beginning July 1, 2016, take your assessed value, divide it by 1,000 and multiply the result by .74. If your property is worth $100,000, the cost is $74 per year. If it’s $200,000, the cost is $148 per year.


One letter said places like “Boston, Worcester, Lawrence, and Lowell” need the state funds from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) more than Franklin. Worcester just completed a new high school using heavy MSBA funding. Boston and Lowell each have five or more current projects using MSBA funds. If Franklin votes not to accept the funds, the funds do not go back to the taxpayers; they go to the next town in line, which could just as easily be Newton, Sharon or Wellesley as it could be Lawrence.


Everyone must weigh the costs of this project, but they should also be mindful that after five years of exploring all possibilities of getting the high school where it needs to be for Franklin’s students, both the state and Franklin School Building Committee agreed the Model School program was the best option for the town after renovation prices, even after MSBA reimbursement estimates, came in at nearly the same cost. Building the model school provides us with a structure designed for the future and avoids the issues and distractions renovating an active school would provide.


A “no” vote does not mean the problems go away. The town would have to either address the problems with no state reimbursement (and spend a much higher sum to renovate than the new model school would cost) or get back in line with the MSBA for funds for renovation or another new school proposal and with no guarantee we would ever see such a great reimbursement rate again. Heading back to the MSBA would take years and in addition to delaying providing our students with a 21st century facility or even just full handicap accessibility, the prices are likely to continue to rise.


If as a town we refuse to provide the money needed to take any of the actions needed to correct the issues with the current high school, we should also remember that when a public school system doesn’t keep up with its peers, those that suffer most are the ones on a tight budget who can’t afford to send their children to private schools or move to another community. We need to weigh that as well when considering the sacrifices everyone has to make due to a temporary – albeit 25 year – tax increase.


As one of Franklin’s most celebrated former residents, Horace Mann, once said, “education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.”


I encourage everyone to vote YES, on Tuesday, March 27th, but if you do vote no, please do so with full knowledge of the facts and don’t be misled by the misinformation.


Sean Donahue
Franklin

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Voices of Franklin: David Brennan - Buyer Beware

On March 27 Franklin taxpayers should Vote No to the proposed extravagant, wasteful, and expensive 104.5 million dollar high school.

Proponents say Franklin residents will only have to pay half of that — but the fact is the project hasn’t even been put out to bid yet.

The ballot question does not give any specific dollar amount it is asking voters to agree to. Here is how it reads:

Shall the Town of Franklin be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two-and-one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to construct a new high school, to be located at 218 Oak Street, and for the payment of all other costs incidental and related thereto?

Proponents deny the meaning of the plain English of the ballot and say it doesn’t matter because it is only the binding resolution with specific numbers that is important.

Trouble is that the binding resolution also says in plain English:

…any project costs the Town of Franklin incurs in excess…shall be the sole responsibility of the Town of Franklin.

That is to say, the sole responsibility of the Franklin taxpayer who will pay the bill. The bottom line is that the state has wisely limited its exposure to cost overruns in this transaction while there is no similar protection for the Franklin taxpayer.

Some don’t care what the cost is and by their way of thinking the more it costs the better because (I take them at their word), they think it will raise their property values. It is these same big spending people who will be in charge of overseeing the project.

So “Buyer Beware” on this one. Personally I’m voting No. I won’t be giving a blank check to big spenders.


Saturday, March 17, 2012

Voices of Franklin: Jonathan Herndon - Vote Yes

Steve – I see that you have posted a comment posted by someone against the new high school. As it appears that your website is dedicated to all things that matter to Franklin, it is important that you have both points of view for people to read. The problem I see with Ms. Breenan’s comments are that they do not even contain any facts. She described scenarios that are meant to over exaggerate what is being proposed and will only mislead your readers. This is the first time since I have lived in Franklin (10 years) that I have seen a vote to increase my taxes as important as this one.


To be honest, in the past I have voted against some of the overrides because I felt that the town did not give me enough information of how the funds will be spent to make the right decision. The proponents of the new high school have put together a very clear, concise, and to the point presentation that outlines all the important facts and allows the voter to make sure they are making an informed choice. Even the comparisons for those that feel it would be much cheaper to just refurbish the current school. I want to highlight some of the key numbers:


The three original options had an estimated cost as follows (all
numbers rounded to nearest million):
Renovation #1 $86,000,000
Renovation #2 $96,000,000
New Custom School $98,000,000


The great news about the school project is that the MSBA will pay a large share of the cost depending on which option the Town chooses. The final cost of the school and the exact
reimbursement amount cannot be determined until the proposed school is approved by the MSBA and the town has received bids. However for planning purposes the following estimates were used based on assumed reimbursement from the MSBA for eligible costs.


If we look at the same three options after the estimated MSBA reimbursement amount the cost to the town would be approximately as follows:
Renovation #1 $38,000,000
Renovation #2 $43,000,000
New Custom School $47,000,000


Here is the link to their report and website:


http://www.newfhs.com/images/FAQcampaign.pdf


http://www.newfhs.com/facts.php




In my opinion, it is very simple math. We can either have a state of the art school that will continue to allow Franklin to thrive, and for those that need to hear it, increase our property values, then this is an opportunity that we cannot waste. If this does not pass, you can guarantee that we will face continued budget overrides, lower property values and lower government services.


The high school is in dire need of repair. If the concern is that the new high school is not affordable, I would think that only paying 50% of the costs is much more affordable then paying 100%.


Jonathan Herndon
41 Mary Jane Road
508-520-7974


-----

If you have something you'd like to submit for 'Voices of Franklin', please follow these instructions: