What does Marshall have to say about all this? “Repeated attempts to reach Marshall yesterday through a tribe spokesman and on his cell phone were unsuccessful,” Brennan writes. “Tribe spokesman Scott Ferson said Marshall would have not comment until today.” I can’t wait.
Question: What do you suppose the Middleborough selectmen would have done a few months ago if they knew they were negotiating with a convicted rapist who’d lied about his war record?
Question: What do you suppose Middleborough voters would have done if they knew about this before approving a casino deal with Marshall in July?
I don’t imagine Marshall’s being exposed constitutes legal grounds to undo the vote. But certainly it’s all the more reason for Gov. Deval Patrick and other state officials to stop this insanity now.
Let’s return to our narrative, shall we? This all began Saturday, when The Day of New London, Conn., published a profile of Marshall. Written by Patricia Daddona, the story included this, in the second paragraph: “The former U.S. Marine, fisherman and self-described man of ‘the woods, weeds or water’ earned five Purple Hearts and a Silver Star in three tours of duty in Vietnam.”
Daddona also quoted Adam Bond, the Middleborough selectman who has worked most closely with Marshall, as saying:
I think Glenn Marshall is what you see: there’s not a deception, it’s not a façade. He strikes me as a professional, intelligent leader. Like everyone else, he has a little bit of the politician in him. That’s not a bad thing — to put on the right suit for the right occasion.
Enter Peter Kenney. On Monday, the “Great Gadfly,” as he calls himself, blogging on Cape Cod Today, wrote that there was no record of Marshall’s ever having won a Purple Heart (never mind five of them) or a Silver Star. He seemed to have the goods, but, as I said, I hesitated because of the way Kenney ended his item: “No effort has been made yet to contact Marshall or tribal spokesman, Mr. Ferson of Boston.”
Kenney was back yesterday with another must-read story. This time, he said he made several attempts to talk with Marshall and/or Ferson, and that Ferson refused on the grounds that Kenney is not a journalist. Well, Kenney deserves huge kudos — he drove this story, and it’s doubtful that the truth about Marshall would have come out were it not for Kenney’s work. For good measure, Kenney levels an accusation that, so far, the media have not followed up on — that there is also no record of Marshall’s having served as a police officer with the MDC, as has been claimed.
Finally, what is the deal with those medals? The Day runs an odd follow-up, also written by Daddona, that includes this:
Marshall’s legal adviser and lobbyist, James Morris, supplied the information about Marshall’s medals during an in-person interview with Marshall in Boston. Morris is a lawyer with Quinn & Morris of Boston.
Marshall and Morris were with the reporter for three hours in private and Statehouse interviews. Marshall was leaving the room at the tribe’s public relations firm, The Liberty Square Group, and did not appear to be aware of Morris’ disclosure. Morris, who said Marshall is sensitive about discussing his war record, wrote the information down in the reporter’s notebook.
Marshall did not personally inform The Day of the details of his military service for the Aug. 18 story.
So it sounds like it’s still to be determined whether Marshall ever personally claimed to have earned the Purple Hearts or the Silver Star. As Brennan notes in his Times story, if he did, he could go to prison for six months.
Daddona also has another priceless quote from Adam Bond:
I don’t believe that that has any bearing on the negotiations he had with the town and the sincerity and honesty with which he dealt with us. And until I see something more, I don’t think there’s anything more I can say about it. But I’m not uncomfortable. I still trust the man.
Presumably Bond’s assessment was based solely on the news that Marshall had lied about his military record, not about the rape, which The Day doesn’t mention. But it’s been obvious from the beginning that Bond has been in way over his head.
Scott Van Voorhis reports in the Boston Herald on efforts by the Massachusetts Council of Churches, as well as civic leaders like former attorney general Scott Harshbarger and former John Hancock chief executive David D’Alessandro (who wrote this Globe op-ed recently), to prevent a casino from being built anywhere in the state.
I’d say their efforts just got a major boost.
Update: Adam Bond doesn’t care about the rape conviction, either, according to this story in The Enterprise of Brockton. Bond: “I think it is irrelevant to the issues. This is about the man. It is not about the casino.” Amazing. (Via “Gladys Kravitz,” who also posts a hilarious photo illustration.)
I am just finishing up Only in America, Jack Newfield’s excellent biography of Don King. Not to judge an entire group of people, but toward the end of the book King is being sued by Buster Douglas and his manager. Called to testify are Donald Trump (then mostly known as a real estate developer and casino owner), Steve Wynn (one of the largest casino owners, at least then), and boxing promoter Bob Arum.
<
p>
Questioned after the trial, the jurors say it was hard to decide because they were all lying and all just serving their own interests (despite being under oath).
<
p>
Casinos, with their promise of virtually guaranteed profits, seem to attract such hustlers.
<
p>
Is Glenn Marshall a bad guy? It would appear so.
<
p>Is Glenn Marshall the best person to lead the Mashpee Wampanoags and their petition for a casino? Probably not, but that’s for them to decide.
<
p>But why should his personal actions have any bearing on whether or not his people should be allowed to operate a casino?
<
p>The anti-casino forces lost in Middleborough, so now they’re attacking the leader of the Wampanoags. The casino opponents couldn’t win on the merits of their argument, so now its time to just dig up some dirt from the past and launch a personal attack on one of the leading Casino proponents.
<
p>This is just a SEMass version of Troopergate/Whitewater/Monicagate.
I would make a different comparison. Think of the successful coach — Notre Dame’s, I think? — who had lied on his resume (repeatedly). It didn’t affect his ability to coach, but it reflected poorly on his character, and he got fired.
<
p>
Dan Kennedy has followed this more closely than I have, but if the guy’s alleged veteran status appeared in a newspaper profile, you can bet he was using it as a sales tool. So if the salesman lies about something as basic as that — well, would you complete the deal?
<
p>
I.
<
p>
Let’s say you do business with a vendor. The VP of Sales and/or CEO (your pick) seems a little slick, but you agree to sign a contract for them to supply you with widgets. You had some concerns about the deal, but as this vendor promised the highest reliability and lowest costs, you went with it.
<
p>
Imagine that you find out a little while later that slick VP/CEO actually lied about where he went to B-school and previously worked and is a convicted rapist.
<
p>
Would you review the deal you just made, and press a little harder on the due diligence? I sure as hell would.
<
p>
II.
<
p>
<
p>
Or they couldn’t overcome the FUD?
<
p>
III.
<
p>
As for Monicagate, I’m probably in a minority. I generally liked Clinton, and while I thought impeachment was absurd, I did find it very problematic that the President was a) smarmy and b) a liar. As my schoolteacher wife points out, kids (and adults) do internalize stuff like that.
<
p>
Of course, I think the current President’s actions are worthy of consideration for impeachment, but that’s a different conversation.
As Sabutai and I have both pointed out repeatedly, Middleborough voters approved the deal, then turned around and voted against the casino itself. Yes, the vote was non-binding, but the casino opponents would have made it binding if they were legally allowed to.
<
p>
The town negotiated and approved an agreement with someone who has now been proven thoroughly dishonorable. You don’t do business with someone if you don’t trust him. Town officials trusted Glenn Marshall. Now they know they shouldn’t have.
Why would anyone stay at one of those awful meetings for a non-binding vote? It might as well have been a resolution to impeach Bush. The only people who stay for such things are the town meeting junkies. Everyone else goes home, especially from an oppresive atmosphere as that. If I lived in Middleborough, I would have voted no on the agreement, and then gone home.
<
p>
I suppose this is an expample of why it is truly unwise to put something non-binding on the agenda. It can only cause trouble.
<
p>
As for these new revelations, I guess my repsonse is “so?” It changes exactly nothing with respect to that vote.
<
p>
I’m not in favor of casinos in Massachusetts, as I think they cause a blight to their communities. But your blogging on the topic comes off as a wild-eyed crusade, rather than a sober assessment.
The second vote was the second-largest in the history of the town, maybe the state. You don’t get to pick and choose. Both count. Gov. Patrick is precisely the person who ought to pay attention to an advisory vote, since it’s he who gets the next say in this.
It was advisory. It might as well have made the mosquito the official bird of the town. Especially when the largest vote ever happened immediately prior, and went the other way.
<
p>
Can anyone, PP maybe, explain to me why advisory matters ever get onto a town meeting warrant, when capable of such mischief.
because the electorate wants to send a clear message to those with the power of decision. it is no so difficult to understand.
Advisory votes never send clear messages on anything. That is why they are stupid. This casino thing is an excellent case in point.
<
p>
Vote to approve a contract for a casino– this is clear.
<
p>
Vote that casinos are not preferred, but not really, but maybe. Not so clear.
A so-called town meeting where children aren’t allowed, conditions that kept young families and the elderly home, run in a slapdash manner and presided over by a snarling moderator doesn’t provide a clear message either. Either meeting the legal minimum (as both votes did) is enough, or it isn’t.
Any town with an open town meeting has a provision that a petition with TEN signatures can be placed on the ballot. All the Impeach Bush-Leave Iraq-Disobey PATRIOT articles had a whopping TEN people behind them.
<
p>
PROGRESSIVES (snort!) have chosen to completely undermine town meeting with these worthless bits of demeaning, irrelevant trivia. We Conservatives have considered responding in kind – illegal aliens, etc. – but have largely dedicded that we CARE about government too much to have it turned into a spurious round of Final Jeopardy. It’s worked well for 400 years, right up until the Internet/PR crowd got a hold of it.
<
p>
So, to answer your question, any ten opponents – Gladys Kravitz and her immediate family, no doubt – can place an article on the warrant.
Peter: You’re upset because, theoretically, 10 people could have signed the petition. Well, in reality, 450 people signed, as reported here by the Cape Cod Times. And by the way, “Gladys Kravitz” could not have signed — she lives in a bordering town, and is justifiably concerned about what the impact is going to be on her community.
Is there any objective estimate that there were any more than 450 people around for the vote on Article 3 ?
You need an “objective” estimate that 90% of the people didn’t hightail it out of the meeting before they announced any results? And why would your mythically small crowd be made up solely of casino opponents?
Somewhere upthread I saw an estimate of 1500. The Middleborough Town Clerk has no estimate. I’m just asking is there an objective estimate of the number who voted? Absent that, my mythical 450 is as probable as any other.
I think Sabutai estimated 1,500 to 2,000 at one point. He was there, his reports have been very honest and fair-minded, and I would go with him.
People estimate, and accept estimates of crowds according to their interests.
Don’t even get me started on the foreign policy of Cambridge and Northampton. Those petitions are usually proffered by those with whom I am embrassed to agree.
<
p>
You need some kind of filter to screen advisory matters out, maybe subject to override by the selectmen. Kind of like the way companies can filter out shareholder resolutions that don’t direct the company to do anything.
Please remember – a petition article is not always advisory. It has the force of law if passed by town meeting – unless the scope of action is BEYOND town meeting, like locking Karl Rove in an alligaotr tank. THEN, they become advisory.
<
p>
Which is interesting – WHY was the article drafted as an advisory one? It didn’t HAVE to be, could have been placed on the ballot, and could have been binding. Perchance if that route had been taken, it might have been roundly defeated and eliminated whining rights?
I still think that some sort of filter could be devised to sift out the silliness. Especially when, like the casino vote, an “advisory” vote is so thoroughly un-edifying.
<
p>
Good point. To find a voter turnout larger than that of the July, 2007, article 3 vote, you’d have to look all the waaaaaaay back to … June, 2007 when over 3,000 turned out to defeat Prop 2 1/2 override.
<
p>
/sarcasm
You do realize that elections and town meetings are different things, right? Three thousand votes when it’s convenient for you isn’t the same as three thousand votes after four hours of sizzling under the sun.
Gary: You’re comparing turnout in an election to attendance at town meeting. Getting more than 3,000 people to vote in an election is trivial. Getting that many to attend a town meeting is historic.
Comparing a large turn-out in a town meeting, the ultimate goal of which is to vote on a single important issue, to the turn-out of an election, the essence of which is to vote on a single issue is silly.
I’m totally confused now.
<
p>
To your general point, it’s not yet a done deal. Yes Middleborough voted, but the state has to sign off.
Jim: Not to be repetitious, but casino supporters wrote a question that asked townspeople whether they wanted the deal that the selectmen had negotiated with the Wampanoags. The issue was hopelessly confused, because supporters said over and over that people should vote “yes” even if they opposed the casino, because the casino was coming anyway and it was important that the town get the best deal it could.
<
p>
Casino opponents, wanting a clean, up-or-down question, gathered signatures that simply asked voters whether they wanted a casino or not. For reasons that are not clear to me (that is, I haven’t researched why), the question could not be made binding, so it went on the warrant as an advisory question.
<
p>
There is anecdotal evidence, at least, that some people voted “yes” on the agreement but “no” on the casino. Indeed, a town assessor told me he was going to do precisely that. Now casino supporters want us all to ignore the second vote. Sorry. Not going to do it.
What a mess.
…that would help me swallow this.
<
p>
I’m approached by a guy who wants to develop some property I own. He says:
<
p>
Guy: Hey Ed, sell me some of your land.
<
p>
Ed: How much will you give me for it?
<
p>
Guy: $450K.
<
p>
Ed: Yes, I agree that I would like $450K from you for my land, BUT
<
p> No, I do not want to sell you my land.
<
p>
Is that about it?
I think the anti-casino folks would say you were accurate if you gave “guy” the power of emminent domain.
GUY: I’d like to build in your town.
<
p>
Town: Ok, we’ll vote. 2,387 Yes and 1,335 vote No.
<
p>
GUY: Cool. I win.
<
p>
Town: Wait, there’s a nonbinding vote, stick around in 100 degree heat, if you want your opinion to not matter. Show of hands? No count, but it looks like majority says no.
<
p>
DK: We win!
<
p>
DK: BTW, GUY is a rapist and lied about his war record.
<
p>
DK: Hello? Anyone here? We win … hello?
just because people weren’t bright enough to agree with you.
Ferson’s actions came under some speculation on this blog in March 2006.
http://www.bluemassg…
<
p>
So, how exactly are casinos Democratic party policy? I must have missed the part about enhancing quality of life, protecting the environment, progressive tax policy.
I didn’t think Democrats would make it a plank in the platform to oppose a nonviolent activity in which consenting adults participate.
<
p>
I could make the argument that gambling enhances the quality of life no less than television or movies. Or drinking. Yet none of these are opposed because they do not protect the nevironment or are a part of progressive tax policy.
<
p>
“Ferson’s actions came under some speculation?”
<
p>
I followed the link and there doesn’t seem to be anything bad in there about him. Mostly apologies, technical glitches and Andersen supporters outing themselves.
I’m sure casinos were what the founding father’s had in mind with that quote!
<
p>
http://www.massdems….
<
p>
See what you will.
<
p>
I think the relevant plank would be the one that’s not so hot on organized entities exploiting individuals’ addictive tendencies for profit.
<
p>
Let’s see to which party the Altria group gives more money?
<
p>
Interestingly enough, the pattern doesn’t hold for gambling, where Dems do get a bit more of the industry dough.
<
p>
So much for that argument.
So they’ll be marching on Smuggler’s, which enticed me to eat ice cream five nights in a week.
<
p>
And we should use that plank to make the Red Sox move out of town. They’re clearly explointing individual’s adictive tendencies for profit.
<
p>
And Blue Mass Group better not start turning a profit or they’re toast.
<
p>
Silly, silly and silly.
<
p>
You want to oppose gambling for those reasons? I’ll be interested to read your older posts explainign how that plank should be used to close bars and shut down the Home Shopping Network
Eating ice cream, exorbitant Sox tickets, and blog reading are lame comparisons and you know it. And you call me silly.
<
p>
Shopping and drinking are at least relevant. For activities like drinking, smoking, and shopping, in my mind, government’s role is to balance freedom vs. the common good (you know, the general welfare. Clearly, many of us enjoy drinking responsibly, it’s pleasurable and may even be healthy. But alcoholism, which is a physical addiction, leads to a lot of premature deaths, broken families, etc., as too many of us know. The benefits of smoking are arguably less, and the costs more; for shopping, it’s the opposite. I would argue that the benefit/cost dynamics of gambling are somewhat like drinking- many can engage in it without much harm, while a minority suffers greatly through addiction.
<
p>
Another way to look at it is by considering who are each industry’s “best customers.” For alcohol, alcoholics aren’t great customers b/c they don’t go for the high margin stuff, and their total consumption is (I’m guessing) relatively small compared to the total. So companies in the alcohol industry don’t really need to go after alcoholics to keep business healthy (they just want everyone to have a moderate buzz). Smoking is different; there aren’t many light smokers, so they have every interest in courting addicted smokers. You seem to find it silly, but I find that immoral. Gambling is probably a little of both; they do well off the recreational losers but I would guess the addicts are a significant share of the take.
<
p>
I don’t propose banning any of these activities. In fact, I generally am in favor of looser standards (lower drinking age, legalization of certain illicit drugs to undercut the drug economy) but stronger regulation and enforcement. And that includes correcting the market for irrational (read: addictive behavior). I think government on all levels has a duty prevent industries that profit significantly from addictive behavior from growing the market from addicted customers. You think that’s silly, I think it’s common sense.
I seem to recall that the low margin stuff– Bud, MIller, Coors, Gallo– is what keeps the liquor industry humming along. And they couldn’t survive solely on sales of Lagavulin, my own efforts to help them notwithstanding.
Glenn Marshall has stepped aside, according to the Globe. “Like a lot of veterans from that era, I realize I have my own demons that I need to deal with,” he’s quoted as saying. Very interesting quote, given what we’ve learned about him this week.
<
p>
If Marshall’s replacement, Shawn Hendricks, and Adam Bond think they can go about their merry way, they are wrong. The casino has been dealt a serious setback. The agreement was based on mutual trust, and I would expect that’s now been shattered.
If the agreement was based on mutual trust, they would’ve have written everything down in great detail and signed it.
<
p>
Marshall is a liar and a criminal, it appears. Fine.
<
p>
But that doesn’t mean the agreement is somehow faulty. In a private personal contract you might be able to claim fraud. But this agreement is between the town and the tribe, a tribe Mr. Marshall will no longer lead.
<
p>
<
p>
With this much money at stake, you’d be crazy not to deal with every party involved as if they were trying to steal your grandmother’s pearls.
<
p>
If anything, Middleboro is safer now. A known scoundrel is out of the picture and they can now do the due diligence on other tribe leaders that they should’ve done on Marshall a long time ago. And on the agreement, too, if they’ve been silly enough not to make sure they were protected in that.
<
p>
How are they just now discovering he was convicted of rape?!?! It was even in the paper?
<
p>
It’s great for the anti-casino PR campaign, but it would’ve been better before that vote.
Is that, at one time or another, he has said anything you like. For instance, here — again — is something he told The Day, in reaction to finding out about Marshall’s military background:
In other words, here Bond is quite clearly talking about dealing with Marshall personally and basing the negotiations on a relationship of “sincerity and honesty” and “trust.” He can’t have it both ways, and neither can you.
I wouldn’t have it both ways. And no court would have it both ways.
<
p>
The agreement is what’s binding.
<
p>
If Middleboro gets screwed in that, it doesn’t matter if it was negotiated with Don King or Mother Theresa.
<
p>
Didn’t Middleboro bring in some guys that were expert in negotiating these? Do you think they were more likely to have been bamboozled because the guy lied about his medals and raped a girl?
<
p>
If they allowed some fuzzy language or unfavorable conditions in the contract because they thought they were negotiating with a “swell guy” who wouldn’t exploit it, shame on them.
<
p>
Like I said, this is potentially great propoganda for the casino opposition, but it don’t make chicken salad into chicken $&*!
Do you think they were more likely to have been bamboozled because the guy lied about his medals and raped a girl?
<
p>
Actually, yes. More specifically, I think it’s more likely they were bamboozled by a bamboozler than they would have been by a non-bamboozler.
<
p>
Yes, the agreement is legally binding, and state officials can put a torch to it. Which they should. This is the entirely unsurprising consequence of trying to do business with Big Gambling.
This isn’t about Marshall, or the Wampanoags. This is about Harrah’s, and the $200,000 they pumped into Middleboro in the month before the town meeting. They didn’t spend that cash and they didn’t buy the town officials just to be stopped by rapists, laws, or other such silliness.
Sabutai: Don’t forget — Gov. Patrick and other state officials are following this stuff. It matters, because they can kill the casino. And there’s a lot more to come, so stay tuned.
Maybe Deval Patrick will surprise me and come down against the destruction of southeastern Massachusetts — and his own lieutenant governor — by saying no.
<
p>
Given his manner on this issue so far, though, I’m putting much more hope on Sal DiMasi standing up for what’s right.
Whoever it takes.
Maybe Deval Patrick will surprise me and come down against the destruction of southeastern Massachusetts, implosion of the town of Palmer and the surrounding region (as if Springfield needs more negative impact), and say no.
<
p>
Maybe Deval Patrick will lead in the direction of building up society with a vision for a sustainable future as he projected in his campaign. I voted for him because he was the Democrat who spoke about raising the bar in our society…not settling for the lowest common denominator (paraphrase). He has an ambitious agenda and in order to get what he wants a little deal with the devil may be in order. Barring the immediate end of the war, repeal of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and corporate America having an epiphany on greed, it is unlikely that the revenues will be forthcoming in his first term without casinos.
<
p>
Given the posturing of many elected officials on this issue so far, I have little hope….but it sure would be nice if Sal would kill it.
I’m hoping for Deval, counting on Sal.
This whole thing has nothing to do with Deval’s Lt. Governor as you tried to suggest…what was that all about? Way off the mark I think.
<
p>
Tim Murray has a long history of backing casino gambling. Who do you think is its biggest champion in the executive branch?
Since you have become the expert on this subject, what is the deal with Chicopee? From a reporter I was talking to a week or so ago, there has been discussion about casinos coming in to other areas such as Chicopee. This would seem to make more sense than Middleboro, since there is far less traffic and congestion in the middle of the state. I’m not pro or con, just curious how this will all play out if another town is given the green light for a casino.
I’m an expert now? We’re all doomed.
<
p>
I’ve heard about serial interest from the Mohegan Sun folks about a casino in Palmer, but hadn’t head about Chicopee. Frankly, there’s likely a sufficient market for casinos in both Chicopee and Middleboro, but I’m not sure who would provide the legal cover to open one there — do you know if it would be through a Native American tribe, and if so which one?
Here’s a link on what the Chicoppe mayor is going for. This one is more specific about the possibility of three casinos in MA? Apparently, from what I’ve been told, Deval will be coming out with an opinion/statement after labor day. I think that Chicopee’s mayor may be longing the the day that there’s an increase in business in this part of MA. With Springfield just beginning to turn around thanks to Deval and Charlie Ryan, it would be a potential boost to get some traffic out this direction.
Sabutai…you are wrong on this one.
<
p>
You claim that the Lt. Gov. “has a long history of backing casino gambling” and is “its biggest champion in the executive branch”…both claims lack validity…and unfair to post.
<
p>
Deval will do what he wants…and if he should decide to support casino gambling in MA, it will be his decision. You may not want him to do that and are looking for someone else to blame…but you are looking in the wrong direction I think.
<
p>
I have not seen any statement from Murray either during the campaign or since regarding his defined position on one side or the other of this issue…have you?
From an article in the Standard Times:
<
p>
“Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray, the former Worcester mayor, strongly backed slot machines at the race tracks last year.”
<
p>
“His lieutenant governor is a lot more sympathetic,” said Rev. McGowan, an associate professor at Boston College. “Tim Murray would push the casino.”
<
p>
Staffers on Beacon hill have told me similar stuff.
Sabutai…
I know pols who were for slots at existing facilities (horse and dog tracks) as a way to say those struggling facilities and the jobs that were there. I am not surprised if the LG was supportive of that…but that is a FAR CRY from being dubbed “the casino champion inside the Administration”…as you claimed
<
p>
I do not know whether the LG is for or against major casino projects (nor do I care much) but he is clearly NOT a recognized leader in the cause to secure them.
<
p>
I am not familiar with the Rev. McGowan who you quote but jeez, unless he is the LG’s personal confessor, I doubt he knows what he is talking about to make such a bold pronouncement.
<
p>
Don’t you love the State House!? Every staffer, including the lowliest coatholders, claims to know just about everything about everything.
<
p>
We will see where the Guv and LG stand soon enough…no guessing required.
Here’s my new post. And here’s a good analysis of the political fallout that’s in The Standard-Times. The casino is going to crumble very quickly now. Don’t be fooled into thinking all the facts are out there — we’re going to learn much more in the days and weeks to come.
…was this such an emergency measure that it couldn’t have waited until the general election, instead of being held on a lakefront “town meeting” during (apparently) the beginning of August, which is typically vacation time?
<
p>
These “special elections” have got to be reined in. The fact that they are not is the true travesty, regardless of who are paying for them.
<
p>
I actually resent the fact that our town elections in Wellesley are held in March. Nobody votes in March. Why can’t they hold the elections in November, when people are prepped to vote? You know why as well as I do: to minimize turnout for the town elections.
Resent away! EVERY town sets its own date for town elections – and VERY FEW are in November! The local election schedule ANTEDATES the November schedule!
<
p>
As it happens, Middleboro Annual town Metting is usually held mid-May. Frankly the potential for heat or rain is just as good then. NOVEMBER is a great time for a snowstorm! Which is WHY annual town meetings are held in the spring/summer!
<
p>
Go to the Mass. Municipal web site [http://mma.org] and read up on this.