Terry Cowgill

28 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. In the early years of our Republic when votes were held for political office voters were required to stand before all the candidates running for the office and verbally vote in front of all present for the candidate they desired. We sure have come a long way from that. If paper ballot encourages more people to vote their conscience than fine, vote by paper ballot. I, however like to think that there are still some people out there who have the courage of their convictions and are willing to vote those convictions regardless of what others may think. As a society, have we really become that shallow?

   Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 17, 2007 #

2. Yes, Jeff we have. Who would your kids rather spend time with:

   Someone on the cover of YM, Teen or People?

   Or someone on the cover of Time, Newsweek, etc?

   Intimidation does not have to be overt and threatening. Mob mentality can and does rule the day in some instances.

   I have not worried about other peoples’ opinion of me for more years than you have been alive. I know I am the exception.

   Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 18, 2007 #

3. To be honest, I haven’t seen anyone on the cover of Time or Newsweek lately that was worthy of emulation.

   Sorry, but I just don’t buy the intimidation argument. This is a small town, if people think that simply voting by paper ballot is going to disguise their stand on an issue I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell them.

   I’m curious to know what form this intimidation takes in Falls Village. Like you I don’t concern myself much with other people’s opinions of me and I have been on differing sides of many issues in this community. Sometimes on the winning side sometimes not. Not once, over any of those issues did anyone in this community make me feel in the least bit uncomfortable because of my opinions, nevermind threaten me in any manner overtly, covertly, or otherwise.

   Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 18, 2007 #

4. Jeff, your points are well taken. But I never heard of such a voting procedure in early US history. Is it true?

   Comment by Peter Halle — January 18, 2007 #

5. Jeff,

   It’s my understanding the tradition of public votes is similar to what you say, but that the concept of secret ballots gained a lot of currency later, particularly during the civil rights movement, when intimidation was used to suppress votes.

   In the current climate, I don’t see it as a matter of intimidation so much as a reluctance to be seen voting a certain way.

   Imagine, for example, that you knew your employer was of a certain political persuasion and that if you publicly voted your conscience you would be going against your boss’s own preference. Might you hesitate before casting your vote? Or not vote at all?

   I ask my question again: why would anyone vote against the use of paper ballots? Just to preserve the long-standing tradition of “verbally voting in front of all present?”

   It will be interesting to see if a motion for papers ballots is made at Tuesday’s meeting and whether it will be rejected again.

   Comment by Terry — January 18, 2007 #

6. A basic principle of American voting….

   Your vote, on any issue, is YOUR VOTE.

   No one should have to know how you voted.

   PERIOD.

   It has nothing to do with intimidation

   In a general election, no one has the right to know how you voted, unless you want them to. It should apply to all votes cast.

   Intimidation starts AFTER someone knows how you voted.

   Why did you vote that way, what do I need to do to convince you to change your vote, etc,etc, etc…

   If no one knows how you voted, you live in beautiful anonimity!!

   Ahhhhhhh…

   nuff said!!

   Comment by Marshall Miles — January 18, 2007 #

7. ballot schmallot, let’s get to the point: has anyone thought about using a building the town already owns, ie the senior center, for the theater? It has a stage and, presumably, a septic system.

   Comment by judy linscott — January 18, 2007 #

8. Intimidation is a two way street. In order for the intimidator to intimidate, the “victim” must allow themselves to be intimidated. I personally argue politics, religion and most anything else with my employer on a regular basis. While I agree that there are times in our history where intimidation has occurred I just don’t believe that it is a legitimate problem in Falls Village right now.

   Using the intimidation argument as a reason to vote by paper ballot is about as compelling to me as using convenience as a reason not to vote that way is to you. I have no problem voting either way and clearly don’t attach as much significance to the issue as others here.

   To Judy’s question about the availabilitly of other town owned buildings. The senior center is the logical choice for something like this but to my recollection there are strict limits as to how that building can be used. I believe that federal grants were used to renovate the upstairs of the old town hall building and that there are grants still being used for its upkeep. As I recall, in order to qualify for these grants, the space must be used strictly as a senior center. Use by other entities is on a case by case basis subject to certain restrictions.

   I will check into this further and provide a more complete answer.

   Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 18, 2007 #

9. Jeff says…using the intimidation argument as a reason to vote by paper ballot is about as compelling to me as using convenience as a reason not to vote that way is to you. I have no problem voting either way and clearly don’t attach as much significance to the issue as others here.”

   Marshall says….balony sauce! You don’t vote by paper ballot because of intimidation, you vote in a booth or by paper ballot because your vote is your vote, period..thats all I said.

   And the two way street theroy you have proves my point! For every action there is a reaction. If there is no action, there is no reaction. Some people (not me!) do not like to involve in political discorse…they have a right to have their vote be known to only them.

   I stand my ground and refuse to be intimidated on this topic!!!

   Marshall

   Comment by Marshall Miles — January 18, 2007 #

10. Does anyone have an answer for Peter’s question? It’s legitimate: Jeff’s initial statement said, “In the early years of our Republic when votes were held for political office voters were required to stand before all the candidates running for the office and verbally vote in front of all present for the candidate they desired.” Really? Just out of curiosity.

    Comment by Janet Manko — January 18, 2007 #

11. Jeff, there was some sort of intimidation going on. What, how, by whom I have no idea.

    BUT: 80 people showed at a town meeting. You don’t get that many to vote on the town budget. Of that 80, 72 voted in favor of the issue at hand. It would appear that the residents want the theater.

    However, as Terry has noted this issue is the MOST visited and commented upon of all the entries.

    It would appear that the vote, while legal and binding, may not have been the wish of the many. Tyranny of the minority? Stuffing the ballot box?

    My opposition remains. This is a start up business. Does it have a business plan? How does this business intend to fund repayment of $500,000, at the minimum? Has the sale gone through? Is there a mortgage? Is the business a LEGAL non-profit entity? What will the line item, hinted at by Pat Mechare, be called and at what cost to the residents?

    As Number 5 would say: “I have questions, queries, posers…”

    Does anyone have the answers?

    I also wonder about why there was no paper ballot, history of the vote or not. Just because it was done, does not make it right.

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 18, 2007 #

12. Let’s also remember that in the beginning of the Republic you had to be a white male property owner to vote.

    Comment by William — January 18, 2007 #

13. For Marshall: I was actually responding to Terry’s comment. I apologize for not clarifying that. I will however respond to you by saying that the town meeting format was designed to conduct the business of a community without incurring the expense or extended time delay of a referendum. The format allows for open debate so that as much information about the issue as possible can disseminated to the body so that they may make an informed vote. The most common method of voting in this format is the voice vote. The initial decision about the manner of voting rests with the meeting chair. Should the body prefer another method than that suggested by the chair they may change it by majority vote.

    My point is that if someone is paying any kind of attention to what is going on at the meeting it is pretty easy to determine the lines of opinion on the issue. While it is certainly possible and allowable, it is highly unlikely for someone who speaks against a motion to turn around and then vote in favor of it. A paper ballot does provide some anonymity but, especially in a small town, it is still not a stretch to figure out who votes what way. I actually think you have a better chance of having your vote remain anonymous with a voice vote but that is only my opinion.
    I spoke to the intimidation issue because others here have raised it as a reason why they favor voting by paper ballot.

    For Janet and Peter: I am currently taking a college course in American Political Systems. One of the chapters in my text talks about how the forms of voting have evolved through our history. According to the text, the verbal method of voting I described was used as well as a method that used a different colored slip of paper for each individual candidate. Several other methods were experimented with before the paper ballot as we now know it came into play.

    Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 18, 2007 #

14. Paul, there were 30+ kids in the cast of The Wizard of Oz and several other kids not in the cast that have attended the groups workshops. That corresponds to alot of families, most of which have more than one voter. The group has also involved many people in the community without children. I think one could safely assume that these people have a vested interest in this project. I believe that is the reason that the turnout was as large as it was. I just don’t see some deep dark conspiracy here.

    You say intimidation occurred, who was intimidated? Was it those in favor of the issue, those against it, those not present? What form did the intimidation take? To say that intimidation occurred without offering specifics rings rather hollow.

    I will try to answer your specific questions as best I can. The sale has not yet gone through. The closing is contingent on the town approving the easement for the septic. The P&Z unanimously approved granting that easement last night and the special town meeting to vote on it will be held next Tuesday evening. I’m not sure where the $500,000 figure you use comes from. To my knowledge there will be no mortgage. The purchase price will be covered by the $25,000 from the town and money raised from other donors. It is my belief that the theatre group is a legal non profit as donors have been able to write their donations off their taxes. The description and amount of any line item the group may receive has not been determined and will be subject to town approval via the normal budget process. The town will have a lien on the property that stipulates a return of the $25,000 donation should the group fold at any time. I can not answer as to whether or not the group has a business plan.

    There was no paper ballot because the majority of the voters present were against it. Whether we feel it was right or wrong is irrelevant. It was the wish of the majority of those present as legally established by vote.

    Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 18, 2007 #

15. As I said, re: intimidation, don’t know who, how, what, etc. Some people at the meeting have expressed they felt “intimidated” by the voice vote. Truth be told, I agree with you: STAND UP and BE COUNTED. However, since this is becoming a nation of sheeple, it is probably too much to ask of most.

    BTW: the reason for the vote during the holiday was to get a donation for the purchase. Yet, the sale has not gone through. Why not? Is the easement the other shoe waiting to drop? How many feet does this creature have?

    IF they are a non-profit, why have the people that run this not come out and said so? Why the speculation. IF they are not non profit, donations CANNOT be tax deductible. The IRS still relies heavily on honest compliance.

    Intersting, that the town committed 25k, then it is revealed, here, for the first time that the easement must be in place. Before you get fired up, I understand why, etc. I even called the State of CT to determine whether such an easement is legal; it is.

    Again, why NO BUSINESS PLAN? They want taxpayer money.? As Tom Cruise said: “Show me the money!”

    This is a serious legal and financial issue before the town and its residents. The Theater Group’s powers that be must come forward and face the public. Questions deserve answers. The powers that be in this group appear to be treating this as a private purchase, and release as little information as possible. It is not, and has not been since they asked for taxpayer money.

    Since it appears to be a foregone conclusion, unoffically, of course, that the theater will be a new line item, I would expect that they are then responsible to provide audited financial statements, for public review, to the town, annually. Anyone from town government care to respond?

    Jeff, are you an official of this group? Who is President, VP, Treasurer, Secretary? Why have the officers of the theater not contacted the 3 papers that serve this area, as well as Marshall Miles and Joe Loverro, to disseminate info? Perhaps if the group was known to a wider audience, funding would increase. I am sure that the Sharon theater draws from a much wider area than Region 1 concerning financial support.

    The blog is a great place to discuss, but a poor place to run a PR campaign.

    At this point, regardless of the P&Z vote, I am against the easement. Too many unanswered questions. Legal does not mean proper.

    Sorry, Jeff. You did not answer my questions. There is much speculation in your response.

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 19, 2007 #

16. Paul, Your suggestion that the Theatre Group be more open in addressing questions on this issue is a valid one. The information I had on this issue I gleaned from attending the town meeting as I serve the theatre group in no capacity other than the parent of a participant. The issue of the sale being contingent on the easement was presented at the town meeting and I was simply repeating it here.

    I am unsure of the exact makeup of the Board of Directors for the group, but I do know that Denise Cohn and Vance Cannon serve on the board in some capacity. I think they would be the people you may want to address specific questions to.

    I believe that you are right on the money in suggesting that the group take advantage of the several media outlets we have available to us in this area. An informed public is a never a bad thing.

    Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 19, 2007 #

17. Jeff and Paul,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’ll try one more time with my intitial question.

    I would be grateful if someone who voted against using paper ballots would take a stab at explaining his/her motivation in doing so.

    Comment by Terry — January 19, 2007 #

18. Terry, my reasoning for not supporting a vote by paper ballot was primarily one of convenience. Beyond that, I just don’t agree with this claim of intimidation or the assertion that it protects anonymity.

    Who counts ballots? Presumably people representing both sides of the issue as selected by the chair. If voting this way protects anonymity how does the chair know who is in favor of an issue and who is against it? We rely on the word of those counting as to the results of the vote. How can we be sure they counted correctly. Perhaps they have some hidden agenda and are misrepresenting the numbers because they were intimidated to do so. Voting by show of hands allows all in attendance to make a count.

    You say convenience is not a compelling reason to base this decision on, yet the reason the town meeting format is used at all is primarily one of convenience. It allows the body, in this case the town, to conduct business in a more expeditious and economical means than referring each and every issue to referendum. The established norm of a voice vote is only following that logic.

    You’ve made me feel intimidated about this. The next time it is moved to vote on an issue by paper ballot I may move to take that vote by paper ballot as well. You know, just to protect my anonymity and prevent further intimidation! (wink, wink, Tongue planted firmly in cheek)

    Comment by Jeff Jasmine — January 19, 2007 #

19. I vote (by paper ballot of course!) that we end this post, and get on to teachers and administraters pay, not only in Falls Village, but the entire region!!!!

    Paul, your first….

    Marshall

    Comment by Marshall Miles — January 19, 2007 #

20. I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV, but I did think that a little information about 501(c)(3)s might be helpful to those interested in a rational discussion here.

    First of all, it typically takes a year or more for the IRS to grant a 501(c)(3) exemption to ANY not-for-profit. During that time, an extensive and probing application is drafted, the IRS reviews the application and submits questions to the applicants, the applicants reply to the questions, the IRS may submit additional questions to the applicants, which the applicants reply to, and finally, after the IRS concludes that the organization is a legitimate not-for-profit organization, they notify the organization that they now have 501(c)(3) status.

    The logical question that comes up next is how the organization gets donations to it handled as tax deductible during this period while the IRS is checking them out.

    I cannot speak for the Falls Village Children’s Theatre, but in my experience, during the period while the 501(c)(3) is in the works, the organization receives donations via an organization that already has tax exempt status. Churches, synagogues, etc. sometimes do this as part of their community outreach efforts. So do community or area foundations.

    Thus, you should not expect a newly created not for profit organization to have 501(c)(3) status immediately. And, tax deductible donations can still be made for its benefit via the umbrella or parent or incubator not-for-profit while the new organization awaits its 501(c)(3) status.

    Hope this helps.

    Geoff Brown

    Comment by Geoff Brown — January 21, 2007 #

21. Geoff,

    That’s correct. It does take at least a year to get 501(c)(3) status. Many newly formed charities around here receive their gifts through The Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation (e.g. the Jane Lloyd Fund comes to mind). But the BCTF takes a percentage of any gift (I think it’s about 20%).

    If the donors who needed to make their charitable gift to the theater company by Dec. 31 did so to get a tax deduction, then the theater company either got 501(c)(3) status quickly or it ran it gifts through another organization such as BCTF.

    Comment by Terry — January 21, 2007 #

22. Thanks for the info. Saves me some more digging. AND raises more questions about this group.

    The main question remains:

    Why aren’t the principals in this group more forthcoming?

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 21, 2007 #

23. It took Tri-State Public Communications 4 months to get its 501(c)(3) from the IRS. I did it by myself.

    During that time, I registerd with the State of Connecticut Secretary of State, (my corp was formed already, and in my inital application to the IRS I received my Federal EIN number). I then registed as a charity with the Connecticut Att Generals Public Charities unit.

    So the process was transparent and available to the public from the very start.

    As a matter of fact, it had to be, I was responsible to file information with the DPUC from the get-go.

    I saw a flyer looking for funds for the Emerson Building Project whic mention becoming a 501 (c)(3). Thats fine, who are they operating under? If they are operating under the auspices of The Area Foundation for Public Giving, or the Berkshire Taconic Fund, letting people know that will only give more credibility to their cause.

    I hope the theatre becomes as succesful as Tri-Arts in their own way…I just thought they would be a little more open on their finances..it would help answer some of the critism.

    Again, I think most of the critisim is based on the towns handling of the issue of the $25,000 loan, grant, etc!, not the theater.

    If the theatre company would like help from me in the setting up, of their 501 (c)(3), I would be glad to help

    Marshall

    Comment by Marshall Miles — January 22, 2007 #

24. Precisely my point.

    The principals, whomever they might be, are less than forthcoming with information. Why?

    I am not opposed to FVCT. As someone with as little performing talent as can be, I think it’s a great outlet and will address a need in this area. IF my children wanted to participate, they would.

    I am opposed to town funds being used to support any type of business, non-profit or not. Yes, that means I am opposed to South Dakota giving tax breaks to Citigroup to process credit card transactions, and the entire debacle in New London.

    Once the theater princials asked for taxpayer money, this became a public deal. The taxpayers have a right to know all the financial details. I am opposed to any more concessions from the town, including the easement, until there is a business plan for public perusal, and proof of non-profit status, or at least application for same.

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 22, 2007 #

25. Two quick points:
    When the theater group initially used $2,400 in tax dollars, First Selectman Pat Mechare was asked three times for an accounting. None was forthcoming. People remain appalled at the indescretion of spending $13,000 for a children’s play.
    Secondly, is it true a large number of children who participate are from out of Falls Village, and even the area? That’s the latest word. If so, then this should be funded by a user fee. There is no discernible benefit to the tax base that warrants taxpayer funding.

    Comment by Karen — January 23, 2007 #

26. I’m getting tired of apologizing for chiming in on this thread on the basis that I live “outside the area” (i.e. I live in Twin Lakes and go to church in Lime Rock).

    However, even giving credit to our individual town spirits for giving our individual towns characters all their own, I really wonder if we are on solid ground when we are explicitly reluctant to accept kids at an activity in one town because they live in another — unless they happen to be able to bring a big check along with them.

    Our year-round population in this area is tiny (considering our proximity to New York City and Boston), and as has been often pointed out, we have fewer and fewer kids growing up here. Can we really afford to set up financial barriers between towns at this stage of the game? For CHILDREN?

    I personally see Berkshire United Soccer Club, which covers all the towns in Region I, as the paradigm we ought to be emulating.

    The days when townships were defined and villages located according to the distance a man could conveniently walk in a day are ancient history today. (Dick Paddock’s current column in the Lakeville Journal, concerning the “elopement” from Canaan Mountain to Millerton, is actually evidence of how obsolete and positively antique our insistence on 19th century township boundaries were even a hundred years ago.)

    Just a thought….

    Geoff Brown

    We in the Northwest Corner are already nothing but neighborhoods in one community, whether we like it or not — or even choose to recognize the fact.

    Comment by Geoff Brown — January 23, 2007 #

27. Geoff, Berkshire United is PAY TO PLAY. So is Housy Hoops, the Boys’ Travel Basketball Team, and the Royals, the distaff basketball team.

    This not about “the children.” Good Lord, liberals need a new phrase. This is the expenditure of town funds for a start up business. Will this business pay taxes? Will this business generate any sort of income to the town? They are willing to take town money…

    Vance Cannon spoke at the easement hearing, in which we were all told that only questions about the easement may be considered. Vance TOLD the audience that if the building was not purchased, ti would sit empty, since no one wanted it. This is a kitchen table deal, cut by the Board of Selectmen for the benefit of the FVCT. Now that precedent to give taxpayer money to them has been established, it can be done in the future because “we’ve always given money to the theater.”

    BTW, don’t ever apologize for chiming in on any thread. You may well face the same situation in your town, someday.

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 29, 2007 #

28. I also forgot Babe Ruth Baseball, Little League Baseball. These groups involve children from the entire region, and if you want to play, you pay.

    Why not a “user fee” for a supposed non-profit business, that is considering expenditures just a bit south of 3/4 of a million dollars? Where is the money supposed to come from?

    Comment by Paul Bartomioli — January 29, 2007 #

Leave a comment