Letter to the Editor: Just Doing Their Jobs?
Posted on Feb. 8th, 2010
Mary Peters and John Shepherd have recently been defending their actions regarding their attempt to restructure the City Charter back in April. Their contention is that they were only trying to make a government that is more democratic by removing certain powers from the Mayor and handing them over to the City Council. They believe that the ability of the Mayor to fill vacated City Council seats has allowed the past and current Mayor to sculpt a Council of their own supporters. I think they make a valid argument, and one that is certainly worthy of consideration. Any time we have an opportunity to make our government more democratic, it should be presented for discussion.
While I see the validity of their desire to change certain aspects of our governmental structure, I have to question their motives and tactics. If this were merely an attempt to make our government work better for the citizens of Gardner, why would they try to rush it to a vote, with no prior notification, just moments after being sworn into office? Why wouldn’t they take the time to present their ideas to the public and other members of the Council for further discussion? After all, if it were for the benefit of the citizens, wouldn’t they want our support?
In addition to wondering why they would try to rush something so important to a vote, I also wonder why they felt the need to be so secretive about their intentions. If your intentions were to help the people attain a more democratic government, why would you hide it from those same people? Peters, Shepherd, and the Take Back Gardner political organization have admitted to planning this change during their campaign, and yet they never mentioned it to the public. All of this seems like odd behavior for City Council Members who are just trying to give the good people of Gardner more control over their government. Why would they behave this way?
Here’s what we know:
• While they were campaigning on a platform of bringing transparency back to our government, Take Back Gardner was already plotting these changes, but never mentioned it to the public. Their proposed changes would have handed the ability to fill a vacated City Council seat over to them, contrary to state statutes.
• Their first action on the new Council was an attempt to take over the meeting. There was a motion to make “certain changes” to the government structure. This was seconded, and without discussion, John Shepherd attempted to force a vote on an issue that no one, including neither city staff nor the attorney had reviewed. When this failed, John Shepherd attempted, unsuccessfully, to end the meeting.
• Their second action on the new Council was to block Mayor Drovetta’s appointment of Dennis Pugh to fill the City Council seat that was vacated when Drovetta was elected Mayor. There was no explanation as to why Pugh was unfit or unqualified nor would they vote in favor or against the appointment.
• When that failed, they tried to block all actions of the Council, in an attempt grind our government to a halt until they got their way.
• Two days later, three identical letters were submitted to City Hall signed by Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson to force a special meeting so they could try to push their proposed changes through again. (They want us to believe that these identical letters were written and signed without any discussion or knowledge that the other two would also be signing. This was the catalyst for the alleged KOMA violation.) These letters stated that they had already agreed on the proposal and that they had already agreed to stop any further actions in the city until the changes took effect. These agreements had been made outside of the public eye and without public discussion.
• When this failed, a work session was scheduled to discuss the proposed changes. At the work session it was revealed that their proposed changes could not be implemented, and as Mary Peters finally admitted, were only suggested to remove all statutory authority of the Mayor.
• A vote for a change to the City’s charter was scheduled and failed. Once this attempt failed, and Steve Hale had been appointed to fill the vacated Council seat, Peters and Shepherd never brought it back to the table for further discussion.
To me, those don’t seem like the actions of City Council Members who were working for the benefit of the people. I see that as a blatant attempt to seize the ability to appoint another Take Back Gardner member to the City Council. While the end result of having the Council fill vacated Council seats may have promoted a healthier democracy, their means and motives clearly did not.
Ask yourself this question: Do you think they were just doing their jobs as Gardner City Council Members, or do you think they were attempting to further their own agenda by any means necessary? Whichever you believe, please make sure to have your voice heard by casting your vote in the recall election on March 2nd.
E-mail >>>
Printable Page >>>
RSS >>>
Comments
Add Comment | Report inappropriate comments.Order By: Oldest First | Newest First
BLM wrote on 2/9/2010 8:15 pm
Bill I agree. I'm sure John and Mary have a strong core of faithful citizens that will come out to back them up. We just need to make sure people get out and vote.
Bill B wrote on 2/9/2010 5:59 pm
Chuck Clark's letter is well written and gave me a much greater understanding of the time line and actions that precipitated the Recall election , thank you Chuck .
This Election will be won or lost long before Mar 2 2010 due to the Motor Voter advance ballots, and just because John and Mary have no signs doesn't mean they are not getting Votes now!
jdelphiki wrote on 2/9/2010 11:16 am
And of course, that was supposed to be "people", not "peopled". But your point is well-taken, Heath.
Every step along the way for Take Back Gardner has been a denial of letting the people decide...with the execption of last year's elections, of course. Even then, they squandered the seats they won and the majority on the Council they gained, simply by ignoring what the people who elected them asked them to do: provide transparent government and do what's best for the citizens of Gardner. Instead, it's secret agendas, tap-dancing around KOMA violations, and calling the voters who ask for explanations "liars". On top of doing everything in their power to let the voters decide again.
Where do those actions serve the people of Gardner, other than those who are financing lawsuits against the DA and the election commission?
@Agreement wrote on 2/9/2010 11:11 am
I think what he's saying is the end does not justify the means.
Heath wrote on 2/9/2010 10:14 am
"Better still, let's ask the peopled what WE think."
They've made it clear that we WE think isn't relevant to them.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/9/2010 10:10 am
@Agreement -
There's a bit of a flaw in your logic. A lot of people didn't like George W. Bush while he was President, but few rational people suggested (or attempted) a bloodless coup to remove him from office.
The methods used by Mr. Shepherd, Mrs. Peters, and Take Back Gardner ARE important -- especially because they flirted very close with breaking the law outright. Especially since they offer as their chief defense in doing so that nobody actually "caught" them in violation of the law...oh, and that their under-the-sheets power grab was REALLY about helping the city. Uh-huh.
Opening up a discussion for a redistribution of power within city government IS, as Mr. Clark points out, a valid topic for discussion. Organizing an underhanded, self-serving coup out of view of both the eyes of the public and the face of the Council is a valid cause for a recall. Don't believe me. Just ask the election office. Or the DA. Or the judge in the lawsuit. Better still, let's ask the peopled what WE think.
Agreement wrote on 2/9/2010 9:45 am
Thanks Mr. Clark for being in agreement with the change they were trying to make. You don't agree with the method so you recall? Really you can't see the forest for the trees.
Eye Opening wrote on 2/9/2010 6:09 am
Reading that series of actions was quite eye opening. I'll be casting my vote to recall.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/8/2010 10:06 pm
@Same ol' -
Don't feed the troll.
The lack of the ability to stay on topic and address the questions answered says all we need to know about those who would criticize the questions raised by Mr. Clark in his letter.
The opinions of Gardner citizens who are truly interested in our community and in addressing our problems and differences stand on their own, without having to denigrate anyone else.
Guido wrote on 2/8/2010 8:32 pm
Judith! I love the new name for Shepherd and Co. and the Take Back Gardner Crew - "Silent Power Brokers"
Paul Jones wrote on 2/8/2010 6:32 pm
God will help me check the YES box, cause it is his power that has given me the chance to do so...
jdelphiki doesn't stand up for what he.... wrote on 2/8/2010 6:18 pm
believes in - he is too much of a coward to do that.
Paul Jones..... wrote on 2/8/2010 6:16 pm
Taylor, Beasley, Solie or Clark will have to be standing over your shoulder and telling you which box to check considering how you write, spell, etc. If it takes people like you and the Beasley lynch mob to meet the demands of the silent power brokers in this town, then God help us.
Paul Jones wrote on 2/8/2010 4:55 pm
Thanks Jarad, Ryan, and Chuck, for not giving up on our dream to have all voters voices heard which ever way.....I will be voting "YES" to re-call Jonh and Mary plus their hidden agendas...Join me March 2 and do the same...
Same ol' same ol' wrote on 2/8/2010 3:43 pm
Judith/Panda - it is so YOU to resort to saying mean and inflamatory things about someone who has enough conviction to stand up for what he believes in. What a person does in his 'personal life' has no bearing on the secretative, non-transparent way shephard and peters have carried on. Give it a rest and stick to the topic. Someone might just stand up and sue you for defamation of character!
Moe for Gardner wrote on 2/8/2010 3:39 pm
I think Chuck has raised some valid concerns here. Furthering democracy is always a noble endeavor but one must not glaze over the details.
In this case, the details illustrate a very different picture. A picture whereby a few council members sought to strengthen their political grip on the City of Gardner by utilizing premeditated and distastful tactics brewed up far from public scutiny; but rather, in secretive fashion, very much in the same manner that other more dubious things are contemplated. At the very least, we as Gardner citizens should ask 'why'?
If the answer to that question is not clear for you, I offer to you that "Furthering Democracy" was probably a much smaller, and possibly unintentional, reason the council members took these steps.
Knuckles wrote on 2/8/2010 3:19 pm
I think there is an Acorn branch in Gardner. Opened a couple of weeks ago on Juniper Terrace.
terrance wrote on 2/8/2010 2:41 pm
Is there anyway the take back Gardner group will cheat and stuff the ballet boxes? Is it too hard for them to do that like in Chicago?
A few vote saved us from Fotobich. What would have happened here in Gardner if Fotobich had been mayor? I guess it couldn't have been worst. They couldn't have blown it anymore than they did already.
gardner2 wrote on 2/8/2010 2:15 pm
Maybe it's inappropriate but can't we put these guys on a trial of some sort in front of the city? I'd like for them to answer these questions that they keep giving conflicting stories on.
The article they put in the Gardner News under must be a total fabrication of the events that happened.
John 8:32 wrote on 2/8/2010 2:11 pm
John and Mary....should have just told us the truth and you would have been set FREE.
Joyce wrote on 2/8/2010 1:12 pm
Very interesting points Mr. Clark. I've been trying to figure out what has been happening with our city council. Doesn't sound to good.
What do I believe? wrote on 2/8/2010 1:06 pm
I believe Chuck Clark didn't write this.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/8/2010 12:52 pm
Interesting, Chuck.
I would also be inclined to add the following question...one that I posted over at Gardner News: Who stood to benefit from Take Back Gardner's proposed Charter change?
It seems disingenious, that Mrs. Peters and Mr. Shepherd claim concern over the appointment powers given to the Mayor by the city's charter, but were voting, in effect, to give that power onto themselves. Seems like a horrible conflict of interest, doesn't it? Or, at least, a disingenious defense of an otherwise indefensible act of political coup.
Report inappropriate comments.