It’s with mixed emotions that we announce that it appears that Mark Belanger and Rob Cameron were elected as Selectmen. Rob has always conducted himself extremely well when working on behalf of the town. It is hoped that he can bring stability to what has been an unstable situation. Mark Belanger appears to have been less than forthcoming when explaining the reasons for his actions on behalf of the town. The residents of the town have spoken and the RFP is hopeful that the Selectmen can move forward with a fresh start and focus on what is in the best interest of the town. Congratulations to both selectmen.
It is the opinion of the RFP that Mr. Buccina did an exceptional job under extremely difficult and often hostile conditions. We want to express our appreciation to him for his efforts on behalf of our community and wish him well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
I would like to echo that about Greg.Yes, he did an excellent job under very difficult times. I too hope that the selectmen can work together. However, the select group still have the majority of the votes and I wish Rob and Brad well. I also hope that the other selectmen will work for the best interest of Rumford. The past is behind us all and now we need to move forward for what is best for Rumford. Not just a select few that want to make waves. I plan on supporting them all until they prove us wrong. I hope they do not. Best of luck Greg and I hope you keep active in the town. We need more people like you to get involved.
Words can not explain my frustration. Nothing was acomplished, the mess will continue. I am not proud of where i live!!
B
Next we will have the marxist Obama,i,m beging to think. F-it, if i say more, i'll regret it. One big Joke. Where did my country go???
It's attitudes like these that stall moving forward. I feel that this board will be strong and are serious about changing and getting down to business. This election went very well, in my opinion. Sorry that you few are so disappointed, but the majority spoke and this is what we've got. How about keeping an open mind and look at the positive. Tomorrow is a new day, with a new board. Let's give them a chance.
Mark Belanger earned the mistrust of many of us in town. If he wants our support, he will have to earn it back.
With Boivin as Chair and DiConzo as Vice-Chair it should be interesting. It is what it is. My stomach hurts this morning.
Greg did an outstanding job in the face of adversity - he deserves a little peace and quiet and I respect that he was willing to serve. Thank you Greg.
I wouldn't say Mark earned the mistrust of MANY in the town, the majority re-elected him.
I wouldn't go as far as saying he had the majority of the votes. He had 40ish more that Greg. Far from the majority. The majority would be Rob.
Just trying to set the record straight.
I'm suprised to see that no one has posted results to the charter changes. Does anyone have this information?
I understand that none of the charter amendments passed except for the language-related amendment.
If a public official lies to everyone about important issues such as policing the community, why should he be trusted enough to re-elect? One who won't even accept responsibility for not using his seatbelt. Accusing the police of "targeting" him. I am dumbfounded that he got re-elected.
By the way, good luck to Brad and Rob.
After this past year, I'm very suprised the charter amendment regarding the requirement of selectmen to undergo municipal officer training wasn't passed.
I am just at a loss for words, from the selectmen race, to the budgets, all the way down to the “fishy” activity at the polls. It is a very sad day in Rumford.
Is it true that the selectmen had their hands in the ballot counting? I heard they were into everything and there were ballots strewn everywhere with some even on the floor. I couldn't find anything in the Charter but I think the selectmen counting the ballots for the board seats is a HUGE conflict of interest. I think definitely a recount is in order, NOT by anyone on the board. I think that recount should then be compared to the voter checklist.
I would think this would pertain to our election and that the state law would rule...
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec504.html
Title 21-A: ELECTIONS
Chapter 7: ELECTION OFFICIALS
§504. Persons ineligible to serve
The following may not serve as election officials: [1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW).]
1. Certain employees. An employee of a party or candidate;
[ 1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW) .]
2. Direct pecuniary interest. A person having a direct pecuniary interest in the result of a referendum question; or
[ 1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW) .]
3. Candidate and certain relatives. A candidate or member of his immediate family, in the electoral division from which the candidate seeks election.
A. This subsection does not apply to a candidate for warden or ward clerk or the immediate family of the candidate for warden or ward clerk. [1993, c. 447, §9 (AMD).]
B. This subsection does not apply to municipalities with a population of less than 500. [1985, c.. 161, §6 (NEW).]
[ 1993, c. 447, §9 (AMD) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW). 1993, c. 447, §9 (AMD).
If that is accurate, and ballots were strewn on the floor, then how will a recount help? How many of the ballots that were on the floor were thrown out? It would seem that the only fair and right way to "recount", if you will, would be to hold another election. Nullfy the election in question, and maintain accountability and protocol.
They can compare the count to the voter checklist, if even one ballot is unaccounted for I think they would have to hold a new election, but that would skew everything unless they just did it between Buccina and Belanger and then you don't have the guaranteed voter turnout as there was on June 10th
There are other protocols to follow as well, does anyone know if at least these were followed?
1. Counted in public. The ballots must be counted publicly so that those present may observe the proceedings.
[ 1985, c. 161, §6 (NEW) .]
2. Separated into lots. In counting the ballots, the election clerks shall separate them into distinct lots. Each of these lots must consist of 50 ballots, except for one lot, which may have less than 50 ballots. They shall place with each lot a statement of the count in that lot and the names of the election clerks who made the count. They shall wrap the statement of the count around the outside of each lot of ballots.
as far as I can see they were not being counted ublicly. unless you count Diconzo on the floor going through them
Who were the people who had their hands on the ballots during the tally? It sounds like it was mayhem- is it that way every election?
From what I was told ballots were on the floor and EB,AB,and FD were going threw them and some were left on the floor. The rest were being counted and FD was telling them what would be counted and what wasn't to be counted. At times he was sitting at the table with the clerks trying to count. EB was going around telling people what to do as well. AB as well had his hand on the ballots at one point or another. BA was observing this during the process. There were at number of people that observed this that could give the same facts as I. I trust the people I have heard this from. I also was told that Mr Doar went up to talk to them as well. At which point AB stayed back away from the process. However, the other two kept their noses right in it. It smells if you ask me. Recount Greg...
Actually this statute is more fitting, it states the municipal officers must appoint election clerks, no BE the election clerks:
§503. Election clerks
Election clerks are governed by the following provisions. [1995, c. 459, §33 (RPR).]
1. Qualifications; appointment; compensation. Election clerks must be at least 18 years of age, registered to vote and residents of the municipality, except that, if the municipal officers, after providing timely notice to state and local chairs of political parties of the lack of available election clerks, are unable to appoint a sufficient number of election clerks who are residents of the municipality, the municipal clerk may appoint election clerks who are not residents of the municipality but who are residents of the county and are otherwise qualified to fill the vacancies. The municipal officers of each municipality shall appoint election clerks no later than May 1st of each general election year to serve at each voting place during the time the polls are open and as counters after the polls close. A list of the election clerks appointed under this subsection must be posted at each voting place. Election clerks are entitled to a reasonable compensation as determined by the municipal officers.
[ 2007, c. 422, §1 (AMD) .]
1-A. Student election clerks.
[ 1995, c. 459, §33 (RP) .]
2. Representation of parties. The municipal officers shall consider the following for appointment as election clerks.
A. The municipal officers shall consider persons nominated by the municipal, county or state committees of the major parties to serve as election clerks. The municipal officers shall appoint at least one election clerk from each of the major parties to serve at each voting place during the time the polls are open. The municipal officers shall also appoint a sufficient number of election clerks to serve as counters after the polls close. The election clerks must be selected so that the number of election clerks from one major party does not exceed the number of election clerks from another major party by more than one. [2007, c. 422, §2 (AMD).]
B. The municipal officers shall appoint at least one election clerk nominated by the municipal committee of a qualified minor party represented on the last general election ballot for each voting place at the committee's request. [1995, c. 459, §33 (RPR).]
C. Notwithstanding subsection 1, the municipal officers may also consider persons who are 17 years of age to serve as student election clerks for a specific election. A student election clerk may perform all the functions of an election clerk as prescribed by this Title. [2003, c. 584, §4 (AMD).]
All nominations for election clerks must be submitted to the municipal officers no later than April 1st of each general election year. If a municipal committee of a major party fails to submit a list of nominees to serve as election clerks, the municipal officers may appoint registered voters enrolled in that party to serve as election clerks.
If the municipal officers are unable to appoint a sufficient number of election clerks as set forth in paragraphs A, B and C, they may appoint any other registered voter, as long as the balance between major political parties is maintained. The municipal clerk shall complete a form provided by the Secretary of State when a registered voter changes party enrollment status in order to be available to serve as an election clerk and to maintain a balance between the major political parties and that election clerk participates in the counting of ballots. The form must be included with all ballots separated into lots in accordance with section 695, subsection 2 when an election clerk who has changed party enrollment status as described in this subsection made the count for that lot of ballots and with tabulation results submitted to the Secretary of State. By January 15th after a general election, the Secretary of State shall report to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over legal affairs the number of forms required by this subsection that were submitted with tabulation results and whether any election that resulted in a recount included ballots that were counted by an election clerk who changed party enrollment status as described in this subsection.
[ 2007, c. 422, §2 (AMD) .]
I wonder why TRR isn't jumping all over this with their big "headlines".
I think those headlines would be counter-productive to their "big picture".
from everything I've read on the TRR they have been putting down all of the towns infrastructure. I have not seen anything good said about that.
These comments are in violation of your policy on attacks, as well as in violation of the ordinance on complaints.
JC,
Could you be more specific regarding which comments you are talking about? Also, what “ordinance on complaints” are you referring to? Thank you.
jc, the comments that have been posted here really are'nt personal attacks. They are common knowledge. Check out the Rumford Distorter. You will see the criticism that is being mentioned here.
I think it's natural for people to want to express disappointment and fear over election outcomes, however, I also think we are digressing into personalities again...there is a fine line and not everyone will see it in the same place. I am not asking the blog administrator to be the judge and jury of each comment. I am asking each poster to consider the greater good before hitting the send button. It would be great if we held ourselves to the same standard we expect of everyone else. Sometimes if I have something "marginal" I'd like to post, I check it out with someone else before I send it...keeps me out of creating my own trouble. Judy O'Neil
flat broke,
I don't believe anything I read in TRR, I believe even less of what I read here, and I certainly don't believe anything printed in the SJ tabliod. I would sooner believe Enquirer.
jc, how do you educate yourself? How do you make informed decisions? You seem to believe no one.
I talk with people and attend/watch meetings. I know who to trust.
The comments here just seem to be making allegations against people based upon rumor. Don't you guys look into anything yourself before condemning someone? Aren't these comments contributing to the negativity in our town, or does that just count if the comments are in favor of those you support??
If people have a question or concern about the way the election was handled, shouldn't they be allowed to voice that? Given the close vote of the election, perhaps a recount is in order. Also, given the state of politics in our town over the past 3 years, wouldn't everyone in town want to ensure a clean, properly run election?
JC, this isn't the Rumford Reporter. People with different opinions are allowed to post their view here. You being allowed to post your last comment is a great example.
jc, how do you know who to trust? Personally, I only trust facts.
I can promise you one thing, the facts stated here are true. The Free Press has done a great job of keeping the facts correct and to the point. They are not personally attacking people like another blog. I appreciate reading the Free Press because it doesn't attack individuals like the other blogs we know. The Free Press accepts other peoples views and is open to constructive views. Thanks Free Press for giving us this forum.
Back to the election: I agree with the free press and everyone else. A recount should happen. I know people that were in the room and they agree with everything being said here.
t,
How do you know what is fact?
I think JC has a point, if you don't see it for yourself, how do you know it is true? In this climate of political discord, it is difficult to trust some people, and impossible to rely on the media for the whole truth.
The SJ has been a big disappointment to me. As the media outlet with essentially a monopoly on local news, they have violated the trust by printing one sided articles and slanting the facts. The Times is owned by the SJ and Bruce claims he has very limited space for articles.
When I turned the Reporter over to JSN, she ventured down a road I never expected. It appears that the writing is more neutral now. This blog has countered TRR with another viewpoint. The articles are not terribly off the mark, but the comments are a hairline from being slanderous. I equate the RFP and TRR as the medial outlets for the extreme views.
So, who do you believe?? Believe yourself. Attend meetings and see for yourself what happens. When you discuss a topic with someone, don't just accept what they say as truth. Seek out someone who has a different viewpoint and talk with them about the issue. Compare all viewpoints and you will likely come to a reasonable depiction of the truth.
Can a recount only be requested by a candidate?
Kevin,
Nice post. I don’t completely agree with you on the Sun Journal. They get criticized if the write about town conflict and they get criticized if they don’t, often by the same source. They can’t win.
Some who post here are a bit extreme but if they write reasonably responsibly, I let it go. I know I’ve held some really good post because they include comments referring to things like “the 3 stooges”. I don’t want this site to turn into that kind of nonsense. I’ll be the first to admit that finding that fine line of what to print and what to hold is difficult sometimes and I know I’ve angered people from both sides of the political spectrum for holding their comments.
You are so right about getting involved in town government though. People should make their own minds up and getting involved is the best way to do so.
jc, I tend to trust “official” documents/reports that are reviewed, audited and monitored by official groups or individuals. I tend to trust information that is presented with objective reality. Opinions are what they are, a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular subject. Opinions are not definite knowledge. Many opinions are posted at the Rumford Free Press. The Rumford Reporter includes the disclaimer or loophole that “THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE RUMFORD REPORTER'S ARTICLES ARE OPINIONS” [this disclaimer probably shields them from lawsuits]. The difference between the two websites is, the Rumford Free Press allows for opposing views. Opposing views help us get to the facts. I understand it can be difficult to “know” what is fact, but I don’t dismiss everything out-of-hand because it isn’t easy. I'm not that cynical...yet.
Believing "official" documents is fine as long as they are actually presented. The documents that led to our town spending $828K on the municipal building are a good example. Many believed that the Fire Marshall had done a full inspection of the building and come up with a deficiency report. Those with an agenda misrepresented the data to meet their goals. However, due to the diligence of RT, we ended up with just one small wart on the side of our municipal building instead of a huge addition that would have been an eyesore and a major hit to our taxpayers. The cuts in the budget that were made this year to stay under the tax cap would have been much deeper if we had to pay for the $3 million dollar project that was first proposed. I still don't understand where the $828k went, but I am sure the engineers can justify it somehow. But my point is that we must be careful to not be fooled by smoke and mirrors. Just because someone says it is true, doesn't mean it is.
Post a Comment