By Will Collette
I reviewed these Charter proposals – read the most recent
review by clicking here – and have concluded that Questions 1 through 6 do not deserve the Town Council’s
authorization on June 11 to be sent to the voters for their ultimate approval
in November.
The new Question #7 they added is pretty good, however. This
proposed Charter change would create an ad hoc committee that would conduct an
on-going review of town ordinances to see which are outdated, redundant,
ineffective or unenforceable, and thus need to be changed or repealed.
For a more detailed run-down of the Charter questions that will be put before a public hearing at the June 11 Council meeting, click here and also here for modifications they made to the wording of some proposals.
But before the CRACers completed their deliberations, there
was some high drama as the committee started to come unglued.
At the April 26 CRAC meeting, CRACer Donna Chambers decided
that she really had it with colleague Bob Yarnall and insisted on reading the
following denunciation into the record. Here is Chambers’ statement in its
entirety:
“As a member of the
Charter Revision Advisory Committee, I am offended and appalled by public
statements made by Bob Yarnall, a member of this committee, criticizing the
group after the hard work our members have put into this activity. After the
public hearing on February 27, Mr. Yarnall stated our meeting to be an unmitigated
disaster and a public embarrassment. He
stated that he and a majority of his colleagues were mortified. I ask Mr. Yarnall, who is this majority? I attended this meeting and did not think it
was a disaster. In his writing Mr.
Yarnall accused the members of this committee as being biased in considering
term limits for Zoning Board of Review.
In fact, Mr. Yarnall encouraged us to not consider term limits for all
appointed committees, but just the Zoning Board. He seemed to be the one targeting the Zoning
Board, which he now admits. I, as one
committee member, can honestly state that I was not biased toward the Zoning
Board, but believe that all appointed committees should have term limits and
the process for reappointment be tightened.
Ruth Platner did not criticize our position with respect to term limits
as Mr. Yarnall claimed, but rather disagreed with our position on the
topic.
Mr. Will Collette and Mr. Tom Ferrio write for the
Progressive Charlestown
This is what I read to
be the “stinging analysis of what Mr. Collette and Mr. Ferrio wrote. On the other hand, Mr. Collette said that
most of what we are proposing for change is unnecessary and some may be
downright destructive. He offers no
explanation for this opinion and has nothing positive to suggest.
Does Mr. Yarnall
really agree with this non-constructive criticism?
Our committee was
assembled to work as a team on the town charter and when the public criticism
was leveled at our group and the work of Peter Ruggiero, Mr. Yarnall broke
ranks. Mr. Yarnall exhibited the least
admirable qualities of a co-worker and team member. I can categorically state that I did not join
this committee with a bias against any group or person and I would like to
believe my committee colleagues can also make such a statement. I fear our continued deliberations will be
adversely affected by Mr. Yarnall’s actions.
I cannot feel free to speak on a subject if Mr. Yarnall’s propensity to
publicly criticize the Charter Revision Advisory Committee’s decisions
persists.”
Respectfully submitted
for the record,
Donna Chambers
Yarnall wrote his own reply, which appears next, but since
Chambers mentions my name, I say this:
 |
| Two dozen Progressive Charlestown articles pretty much cover it, don't you think? |
(1) I sharply criticized the CRAC in depth and in detail,
documenting each point and offering suggestions for ways they could have
approached their task differently.
(2) I noted how the Charter revision process had been high-jacked
by Chambers and the other members of Ill Wind, the town’s anti-wind NIMBY
group, for their own agenda and not the town’s best interests. Again, I
detailed those charges and documented them.
(3) Far from, as Ms. Chambers put it, “offering no explanation”
for my criticisms that their proposals (except Question 7) were either
“unnecessary” or “downright destructive,” all you have to do is read what I
wrote. As for offering no positive suggestions, I offered many. Indeed, I wrote
one whole article devoted solely to positive suggestions. And the CRAC actually put one of my suggestions into their new Question #7
which calls for on-going review of town ordinances.
All told, we published two dozen articles on the CRAC in
Progressive Charlestown. We did our homework.
Read my series of articles for yourself and then compare
what you read with what Chambers wrote in her attack on Yarnall. Click on this article and this article and
follow the links to the articles that preceded them to get the whole picture. Or click here to see them all in reverse chronological order.
 |
| CRAC Secretary Maureen Areglado - no time for minutes |
The draft minutes for the April 30th CRAC meeting
have not been entered into the record. CRAC Secretary Maureen Areglado was
supposed to write them and distribute them to her colleagues, but more than a
month later, they have not materialized.
I had heard that Bob Yarnall had written a response to Donna
Chambers and, since the minutes for that last meeting have not been produced, I
asked him for a copy of what he submitted for that missing record. This is what
he provided me:
April 30, 2012
With respect to Mrs. Donna Chambers’ attachment to the minutes of the
April 26, 2012 Charter Review Commission
meeting regarding myself, I hereby submit the following counterpoint rebuttal.
I and my commission colleagues were offended and appalled by Mrs.
Chambers’ boorish and dismissive comments to Charlestown Zoning Board Chair
Michael Rzewuski at the Charter Review Advisory Board’s February public
hearing. My commentary to that effect was posted on the CCA website as part of a series of blog exchanges
with Mr. Michael Chambers, who I felt was attempting to minimize or rationalize
his wife’s behavior that particular evening.
I stand by my comments. No amount of backpedaling, obfuscation, or
revisionism by the Chambers can change what happened. Anyone who was there
knows the ugly reality of that moment.
My shift in opinion and position with respect to term limits for zoning
board members is fully known to both Mr. Rzewuski Vice-chair Mr. Dreczko. I
have spoken with both gentlemen and I am confident they will attest to my
forthrightness. I recognized my
culpability in the inherent bias built into the term limits proposal and I proposed
the motion to withdraw the amendment question. The amendment was withdrawn by a
majority vote. Mrs. Chambers dissented and remains unwilling to recognize or
accept any bias on her part.
Mrs. Chambers’ statement, that
“Ruth Platner did not criticize our position with respect to term limits
as Mr. Yarnall claimed, but rather disagreed with our position on the topic”
can best be described as a weak, failed
nuance.
I stand by my comments with respect to the Progressive Charlestown
Mrs. Chambers’ attempt to stand the moral high ground by declaring that
my blogging entries “...exhibited the least admirable qualities of a co-worker
and team member” stands in stark contrast
to her dismissive confrontation of Zoning Board members Michael Rzewuski and
Raymond Dreczko at the public hearing. A
defining characteristic of bias is that those guilty of it fail to recognize
it. I disagree with Mrs. Chambers’
assessment, that “breaking ranks” constitutes
“the least admirable qualities of a co-worker or team member” and counter with the reality that bias
supplants all other vices as the destructive element that undermines the
integrity of a government board or commission.
Unlike Mrs. Chambers, I do not fear that commission members’ work will
be limited or modified in any way by my blogging entries, or those of anyone
else. If Mrs. Chambers feels that the
blogosphere constrains her propensity to engage in heated exchanges with citizens
who volunteer their time and efforts to town government, then I believe that my
online submissions may have had an unintended positive outcome. If Mrs.
Chambers is uncomfortable with the reality of 21st century communication
networks, a.k.a. the blogosphere, simply don’t go there.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Yarnall
