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

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Voices of Franklin: Sean Slater - Vote YES Ballot Question 1

From Sean P Slater:
Vote YES on question 1. This should pass because all it requires is the ability to use common sense, something that unfortunately is in short supply on Beacon Hill. Any rational citizen of this Commonwealth understands that this bill in its purest form, is taxation without representation. We pay about 27 cents per gallon, the 3rd highest in the nation. Our legislators do not pay out of their own pocket for gas, we buy their gas. They now want to impose a gas tax which will be permanently tied to inflation, and they want to do this every year without a vote. If you want to introduce new taxes you should have to vote on it, period. If this does not pass think of the precedent it would set. There would be no accountability on how are future tax dollars are allocated and the automatic increase process would be repeated to include our property, excise and income taxes. 
We have had a surplus in this state for the last two years to the tune of about $625 - $690 million. This state spent about $675K last year on highway maintenance, while the national average was about $160K. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The TV ads and articles might be trying to deploy scare tactics by crying poor mouth but the facts contradict that message completely. The last time the gas tax was raised, how many of those dollars, as a percentage do you think went to road and bridge repair? Twenty percent? Fifteen percent? If we give these elected officials a free pass to ignore the will of the people on voting, do you honestly think there will be any accountability on where these dollars are spent? 
Vote for common sense and We The People. Vote YES on Question 1.
bandstand on the Franklin Town Common
bandstand on the Franklin Town Common

You can find all the details on the ballot questions for this election in the 2014 Election Collection  here:  http://www.franklinmatters.org/2014/10/november-4th-election-collection.html

If you are a Franklin resident and would like to share a position on one of the ballot questions, send me an email (shersteve @ gmail dot com)


Monday, April 14, 2014

Voices of Franklin: Rich Aucoin - Franklin Town Council Stands Down

From Rich Aucoin



Town Council's Broken Oath to Constitutions Betrays our Military Veterans, Endangers Public Safety

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963
I, _________, promise to uphold and defend Constitutional governance.-- Oath made by every Franklin Town Councilor, November 13, 2013 (officially broken March 18, 2014)

Why Are Local Officials Required to Swear an Oath to Uphold and Defend Constitutional Governance?

A vital part of the Oath sworn by local officials here in the U.S. is their pledge to uphold and defend our Constitutions. The Founders mandated that the Constitutional Oath be administered even to local office holders because they knew that federal and state legislators were only human and would sometimes make laws that violate our most basic, inalienable rights. In such cases, local officials would be duty-bound to step up and restore the nullified rights within their jurisdictional authority. This bottom-up system of Constitution enforcement is what made America different and special in the world; it ensured that we the people would always retain the power.

A Cradle of Liberty

Massachusetts has a proud history of enforcing basic rights. Five years after the U.S. Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act requiring states to kidnap and ship escaped slaves back to their "rightful owners," Beacon Hill passed the Personal Liberty Act, making it a crime to kidnap slaves in Massachusetts. Even a subsequent Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal law was ignored by our state legislature and kidnapping remained illegal here.

Modern-day kidnapping in the name of 'fighting terrorism'

Today's equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Act is the dangerously vague 2012 NDAA, which authorizes kidnappings of anyone merely suspected of terrorism, including U.S. citizens. No right to counsel. No right to face her accuser. No trial by jury. Just prison.

Fortunately, a national movement of concerned citizens is banning NDAA kidnappings at the state, county and local levels. Successes are piling up, including in the nearby towns of Webster and Oxford, while the City of Albany has become the nation's first Capital City to ban NDAA indefinite detentions.

Franklin Town Council: Cradle of Cowardice

But sadly, despite their public promise last November to stand up for our Constitutions, the Franklin Town Council is choosing to stand downOn March 18th a proposed resolution to ban NDAA kidnappings in the Town of Franklin was blocked by Chairman Bob Vallee. According to Council rules, a majority of members can override the chair to uphold the rights of the people, but to date no council member has been willing.

Returning Veterans Most at Risk

In 2011 the Department of Homeland Security listed returning veterans a domestic terror threat. And w
ith a second Fort Hood tragedy now haunting the nation, the Franklin Town Council and other NDAA followers will more easily be able to justify their targeting of our returning veterans.

To those who will say NDAA kidnappings could never happen here, tell that to the people of Watertown, MA, who, one year ago would never have imagined full-on martial law descending on their city, complete with a paramilitary lockdown and Iraq-style house-to-house warrantless searches featuring entire families rousted out of their homes at gunpoint. The sobering reality is that the expanding post-9/11 militarized police state has put us all one incident away from legal chaos, where our Constitutions and Bill of Rights will no longer protect us, unless our local officials keep their promise to serve as our last line of legal defense.
   
   Irony of Ironies
Benjamin Franklin's famous counsel against trading essential liberty for false security has played a key role in passing every successful anti-NDAA resolution in the U.S. Yet, here in the town that so proudly bears his name, Franklin's wisdom is shamefully discarded, hidden away like some cheap pair of shoes beneath a council chair and eight broken promises.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Franklin Voices: Property on Corner of Emmons Street

Hello everyone -

I am writing you because, in the past, you have been kind enough to be open to information on various issues in the Town.  Currently, the Town Council is considering what to do with the old Town Hall, which now houses the Rec department, at the corner of Emmons and 140.  This building is next to Davis Thayer, Dean College and is truly the "front door" to downtown.

There are basically two options: sell the property now or wait.  The attached petition from the  Franklin Downtwon Partnership makes a compelling argument for waiting, including the need to gather community input into what ultimately sits on this important piece of land as well as considering the needs of downtown businesses during the upcoming construction.

Please read the following petition and sign it electronically if you agree with the message. This petition is necessary because at both public meetings and in news interviews, a few members of the Council have indicated that they will move forward with commercial development despite protest from the community, concerns from businesses in the downtown, and other Councilors who expressed issues with rushing into commercial development without further research.

Please take a moment to support this message to the Town Council. 


Thank you.

Tina Powderly

150 Emmons St, the building under discussion
150 Emmons St, the building under discussion

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.