After casting their votes on the agreement and before the final tally was announced, the body, on a hand vote, ironically rejected a nonbinding question to approve casino gambling in town. Only about half the voters remained on the high school athletic field for that tally.
“I don’t think that’s a true indication of how people feel, because so many people had left,” said Marsha Brunelle, selectmen chairwoman.
Asked if that outcome tainted the vote on the agreement, Mr. Marshall [Glenn Marshall, the Wampanoag chief] said: “It’s the end of a hot day, people get tired, people leave. The true number is the one that got counted.”
But casino opponents would not minimize their victory.
“That’s the root question,” said Jacqueline Tolosko, president of the anti-casino group Casinofacts. “We’re really encouraged. The town just said it doesn’t want a casino. How can that not have weight?”
Think about the cluelessness of Brunelle’s comments. Only 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in approving the agreement with the Wampanoags. As has been meticulously and widely documented, turnout was held down because of the midsummer heat and humidity, which kept elderly residents and people with health problems away. People who had to work or who couldn’t find child care were kept away, too.
As for people leaving, well, town officials all but told people to leave by staging a disgraceful signing ceremony with the Wampanoags as soon as the agreement was approved, but before the casino itself was put to a vote. [Well, no. See correction, below.] That action in itself ought to be the subject of a legal challenge on the grounds that it was a ruse aimed at making people think the meeting was over.
Even so, the vote to reject the casino was a legal (if non-binding) vote on a warrant article properly put before town meeting. Officials have no right to pretend that vote never took place. Again, think about Jacqueline Tolosko’s remarks: “The town just said it doesn’t want a casino. How can that not have weight?”
The second Standard-Times story, by Steve Urbon, expands on Sabutai’s report about improper influence on the part of casino proponents. Look at this:
Another opponent, Richard Young, pointed to Bill Marzelli and his dozens of orange-shirted casino backers and complained that while they were allowed to wear the T-shirts and white hats that read, “Vote YES for Middleborough’s future,” the police confiscated his side’s yellow leaflets, which explained a few opposition talking points. “I’m not allowed to give you anything to read,” he said.
Do I need to point out that the town’s two police unions have endorsed the casino? This strikes me as sufficient in and of itself to throw out the results of yesterday’s vote. No wonder police didn’t want the media watching.
Let me expand on something I wrote earlier. No doubt some people voted “yes” on the agreement because they would genuinely like to see a casino come to Middleborough. But there were others ? plenty of others, I suspect ? who voted “yes” because they were told, repeatedly, that the casino was coming whether they wanted it or not, and that they might as well negotiate the best terms that they could.
Last week, New England Cable News’ “NewsNight” program devoted a half-hour to the Middleborough debate. In the first segment, Ted Eayrs, a town assessor and former selectman, debated Greg Stevens, a casino opponent. In the second, I debated town planner Ruth Geoffroy, who favors the casino.
If you watch both segments, you will see that Eayrs (an opponent until recently) and Geoffroy each talked repeatedly about the supposed inevitability of the casino as a reason for approving the agreement. Let me share something else with you that you will not see in these segments: As we were leaving NECN, Eayrs told me that though he favored the agreement as the best way of protecting the town’s interests, he hopes the state will step in and stop the casino from ever being built.
Well, gee, that’s exactly how Middleborough residents voted yesterday, isn’t it? “Yes” on the agreement, “no” on the casino itself.
Gov. Deval Patrick will have a major say in what happens next. Without his wholehearted approval, a casino will not be coming to Middleborough. The governor needs to consider the fact that voters yesterday said “no” to the casino. Patrick should say no, too.
Correction: According to this story, in the Cape Cod Times, the vote on the casino itself was held while the ballots on the casino agreement were being counted. WBUR Radio reports it the same way. That’s a significant difference, and I regret the error.
Brunelle is a wanton selectmen who’ll inflict any pain on Middleboro to get the casino money. She’s the one that moved to close debate on the question before it had even started — her agenda is pretty clear.
I couldn’t find Middleboro with a map, and I haven’t been paying close attention as it unfolded, but you’ve shed some light. Interesting take on the coverage, and the ‘behind the scenes’ viewpoint as well.
I’m a Patrick supporter, with money, time, cheer leading, door knocking, neighborhood organizing, the whole nine yards. But, I don’t expect much out of Patrick on this issue. Why?
<
p>
He didn’t taken a firm stance on gambling as a candidate, and he hasn’t as governor. He waffles, playing both sides — seeing the negative results on the poor and on infrastructure, but his mom likes slot machines or some such.
<
p>
As for me, I hate casinos [as well as the track, slot machines, lotteries, or any other profit-based gambling]. I think they somewhat dishonestly take advantage of people’s dreams. That I happen to be a mathematician and a tightwad only increases my disfavor.
Cool,
You speak as close to the truth, and God, as one can.
<
p>
At work I mean.
<
p>
Not here on BMG.
I mean let’s not get crazy.
Mathematicians tend to consider me an engineer.
Engineers tend to consider me a mathematician.
<
p>
My background is in both engineering and applied mathematics, and I’m currently doing research on degree constrained spanning trees, an area that uses work in graph theory and algorithms, and in my approach, operations research based on linear algebra, linear and integer programming, and combinatorics.
<
p>
Very dry stuff pulling from lots of applied mathematics areas. Among mathematicians I’m a low grade applied guy — I could never keep up with the real all-stars who focus on structure [number theory, algebras, group theory, etc], space [geometries, topologies, fractals, etc], or change [calculus, differential equations, etc]. That’s the real tough stuff, where hard work is essential but can never overcome a lack of genius.
<
p>
So yeah, I’m a mathematician/engineer/scientist.
<
p>
As for speaking the truth? Maybe a truth. Comparisons of math to God make me squirm — God begins where math ends methinks.
P.S. That my posts tend to be far too long, as opposed to your naturally elegant short posts is evidence that I’m an applied math guy to the core, not a theorist.
We would have gotten way too much info.
In the event that you rate one of my comments with a 5 or 6, I plan to say:
<
p>
‘My position is supported by mathematicians, engineers and scientists’
…at the fine line between engineering and applied science/math.
<
p>
In my last corporate position, I worked with (not closely, but with) a computer science guy from MIT that was heavily involved in networks, and I learned a lot from him about spanning trees. I even bought his book. I forget his name, but his last name begins with “L.”
I usually love (or at least resptect) Dan’s columns analyzing media coverage of major stories. I have his site on my favorites list and visit it all the time.
<
p>
But with all due respect, I think his personal feelings on this issue are affecting his analysis of media coverage. His postings are bordering on rants.
<
p>
So I’m not going to read his stories about the casino anymore. At least not without a huge grain of salt.
<
p>
I don’t mind Dan feeling strongly about it or even posting about it. But I can’t consider his postings about it to be as fair and balanced as I usually consider them.
<
p>
Disclosure: While I do support a casino, I don’t support the Middleboro proposal. I’d rather see that fail so a casino can be built in New Bedford, where I think it would work out better for everyone.
Noternie: I’m disappointed that you think my posts on the casnio are only “bordering on rants.” I’d like to think I’m in full rant mode. However, I’m puzzled by your comment. Can you point to a single statement I’ve made that is wrong, except for the one that I already corrected? Given my complete endorsement of Sabutai’s on-the-ground coverage, do you find anything problematic with what he’s had to say? Please — have at it. I’m listening. (Well, I’m reading.)
I don’t read your stuff to hear full rants, I guess.
<
p>
My experience has shown that your stuff tends to be a little more of a cold, unemotional analysis of news coverage. What does Sabutai’s piece have to do with it? I don’t know him to be a media critic. On the other hand, I think you’re a very good one.
<
p>
I don’t care about the story enough to read anything and everything to see if you’ve got all the details right.
It just feels slanted, even if it’s factually accurate.
<
p>
I’ll keep reading your other stuff. And I want to be clear; I don’t condemn you for posting on something you care about. I just think there’s a difference between your casino posts and others because you’re rooting for one side on this one.
coldest and most unemotional, I generally function as an opinion journalist. I don’t think my point of view is ever in much doubt. Yes, I’ve turned up the heat considerably on this one.
<
p>
Maybe nothing that is technically “wrong”, though it’s pretty clear that you are emphasizing events on Saturday that are indeed far less important than the actual vote on the agreement itself.
<
p>
For example, you imply that the vote doesn’t really reflect the will of the voters because “only 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in approving the agreement”. Even if true, however, I fail to see the importance of this. I would guess (for example) that far less than 25% of the voters in Rep. Meehan’s old district will vote for his replacement, but whoever gets the most votes will indeed represent 100% of the people.
<
p>
And even if the vote on the casino was “legal”, the fact that it was non-binding and was not the chief reason why people were present at the meeting so overwhelms the actual outcome of this vote that it makes some sense why it isn’t given much attention in the media. People showed up to vote on the agreement, they did (by a 2 to 1 margin), and then they went home. The fact that casino opponents held a second vote in order to have something to keep discussing after losing the only important vote is not something that warrants all that much attention.
<
p>
<
p>
And actually, this statement IS inaccurate. What actually happened is that Middleborough residents voted “yes” on the agreement. Some voted no on the agreement, of course, but the majority voted “yes”. That’s the real story.
One additional question — I do realize that Article III was indeed on the town warrant, so in all fairness people did know (or should have known) that a vote could be taken on that. So, to temper my comments above slightly, I do agree that there is some noteworthiness in the second vote, but I would still agrue that the importance is still far less than the binding vote for which they accepted ballots.
<
p>
Which leads to my question, which I don’t think has been asked yet — could somebody have made a motion for a roll-call vote (or ballot vote) on Article III, and if so, why didn’t anybody make that motion? And if not, what determines whether something is a ballot vote vs. a voice vote at town meeting?
<
p>
Well, that presumes one could get recognized by the chair. As I mentioned earlier, I was steadfastly ignored for half an hour, though I was first in line at my microphone. Jim Thomas doesn’t like to call on someone whose name he doesn’t know.
<
p>
Provided the motion was made, I would have anticipated two things. First, an objection that “we didn’t plan for that, and it doesn’t count anyway.” I base that on comments from earlier in the meeting when division on closing debate was asked for, and on our continual reminders how unimportant Article III was. Secondly, I can’t imagine the meeting would have voted to wait for them to prepare some system to count the votes in a precise manner. Such a motion would have been voted down.
<
p>
As to why things end up on a ballot, that is a decision made before the meeting by the Wise Elders (selectmen and moderator).
Bill Galvin did, and declared himself generally pleased with what he was told happened. Then again, we have testimony that his office had rebuffed the town’s attempts to get help from his office, so who really knows.
….then, the moderator will ask if you have 20 people to rise with you to demand a voice vote. If there are, you proceed to the show of hands vote with the count taken by the tellers. There is no provision for an impromptu ballot vote at town meeting, as ballots must be printed and displayed in advance like the warrant.
<
p>
In this case, they would have done the thing like they did to take the vote on moving the question – ayes to one side, nays to the other.
<
p>
But since nobody doubted the moderator, the voice vote stands.
<
p>
Which leads Me to ‘doubt’ that the opponents are hardened town meeting attendees, as this happens pretty commonly and are part of the Roberts Rules procedures which govern these affairs – which fall under the purview of the AG by the way, and NOT the Se. of State.
Selectman Brunelle moved to close debate, got a second from another selectman. A hand vote was held, and the clear majority favored closing of debate. Then, a member of the Finance Committee, asked for division. He was denied, then had to quote directly from the law that it is required to get seven, not twenty to ask for division in a disputed vote. Division is the process whereby the two sides separate and are counted (what you erroneously call “moving the question”).
<
p>
Considering Middleboro often has trouble getting its quorum of 150, I don’t doubt that few of the people there were “hardened town meeting attendees” intimate with how to use rules against their opponents — yet another reason this should have been put on a ballot during a town election. And another reason why it wasn’t.
Quorum and division are two areas that often differ from one town to the next.
I don’t LIKE our moderator, and was looking forward to tripping him up at the fall Town Meeting…
<
p>
However, even if Middleboro is 7 instead of 20, the procedure remains the same.
If you check, you will probably find that most or all towns in New England use “Town Meeting Time” for the town meeting parliamentary rules, not Robert’s Rules, which is just the best known of a number of different (if similar) sets of parliamentary rules. Town Meeting Time is available at Amazon.
<
p>
I am pretty sure (without the book in front of me) there is a Town Meeting Time rule that for any vote, town meeting voters (by majority vote) can require a paper ballot – of course, the town’s bylaws may drop or modify the rule. The town clerk usually has some way of handling a paper ballot ad-hoc. You really just need one blank piece of paper per voter (preferably with something like a town seal, to prevent cheating) and a lot of little golf pencils. If the clerk expects a vote by ballot ahead of time, he may have special ballots printed beforehand.
I have not said that the vote to approve the agreement was of no importance. What I have said is that the vote to reject the casino was of equal importance, morally if not legally. Pro-casino people have argued that the second vote shouldn’t be taken seriously because only about half the people stuck around. In response to that, I simply pointed out that the turnout for the first vote wasn’t all that great either, and far smaller than had been predicted.
<
p>
As Sabutai has pointed out, the second vote was taken among the second-largest crowd in the history of Middleborough’s town meeting. But, technically, turnout doesn’t matter, which is why proponents are wrong to keep harping on the fact that some people left before the second vote was taken.
<
p>
What the pro-casino forces are desparately trying to do is spin the first vote as an endorsement of the casino. For some “yes” voters it was, for some it wasn’t. We have no way of knowing because of the way the question was worded, and because of the rhetoric put forth that people should vote “yes” whether they supported the casino or not.
Sometimes the story isn’t ‘what happened,’ but why it happened.
<
p>
Personally, I find it far more interesting that a town would have rushed through this without going over all the facts in a committee setting. As I stated on my blog, the actual agreement the town voted on was only posted last Monday – less than a week before the actual town meeting (which was Saturday). Many in the town thought the casino was inevitable, no matter how they voted (so they wanted something out of it): who started that rumor? The truth – which is what I think is the ‘real story,’ is that Middleboro’s vote – you know, the one you say is the real story – is largely symbolic in and of itself. Why? No matter how the town voted, it’s up to Beacon Hill whether or not there will be a casino in Middleboro. They’re the one’s who have to approve it.
<
p>
Think outside of the box.
Ryan: Of course it’s up to Beacon Hill, which is why it’s so important that the governor and the Legislature understand that there was a split vote. An advisory “no” vote could prove to be huge if Deval Patrick is looking for a reason to reject this.
Unfortunately, because of the nature of federal law, you can’t pick and choose where a casino will be built if built by a native american nation. If we allow a single, legal slot machine – not only will we have a casino in Middleboro, but we’ll also have one on Martha’s Vineyard. Don’t be surprised to see one near Boston (probably in Revere), NB, Springfield or any number of other places.
<
p>
The way the law works is that if slot machines are legal in Massachusetts, a native american tribe can build them anywhere on land they own. We can’t pick and choose where we allow them, they’re either legal or they aren’t.
I think.
The Meeting’s rejection of the casino itself is an important aspect of the story. Dan, why do you think the Globe omitted this element of the story?
<
p>
As to the news itself (rather than the coverage of the news), I thought Cahill as quoted in the Herald was right on target:
<
p>
<
p>
What really happened this weekend, in my opinion, is that legalized private casinos in Massachusetts took a step forward.
First, Joe Fitzgerald and I wind up on the same side. Now, Bob and I agree on something. What’s next?
<
p>
Why did the Globe omit news of the second vote? No conspiracy theories, just some wanton speculation. My guess is that no one thought it was of much importance, and the reporters who were working for Sunday’s paper just never found a spot to stick it in — even though it got a brief mention online on Saturday.
<
p>
I’m hoping that someone over there realizes this was an important omission, and will find a way to bring it up at some point. A good time would be when they do a story on where Deval Patrick is going to come down on this. A reporter should ask Patrick’s people whether the governor will take the “no on 3” vote into account as he tries to figure out what to do.
Is that the Seventh Seal breaking?
…I have no vote in this matter (I don’t even know where Middleboro is), but did the contract with the Wampanoags, that was approved at the “town meeting,” have a provision for a casino, or did it not? If it did, the vote at the “town meeting” (who in heck holds a “town meeting” on lake-front property in the middle of summer? Have the vote at a general election) should have settled the matter. If the contract did not have a provision regarding the casino, why did it not?
answered.
Middleboro isn’t lakefront. If it had that kind of property value, we probably wouldn’t need to sell out to Harrah’s. However, Michael Vick does live here.*
<
p>
* Kidding, kidding.