Referendum Clarification: basically, the Board has already approved the reduction of 2 Justices of the Peace to ONE... subject to a "permissive referendum". That is, the change has already been approved by the Board; barring anyone "objects" by obtaining a formal petition, signed by 10% of the Town's voters, requesting it be put to a TOWN wide vote in November....as is the case with John's term being increased to four years instead of two. The change in John's term is subject to a town-wide vote in November. The judges' change is not subject to a vote UNLESS someone petitions for a town-wide vote.
I simply question why we couldn't put that on the November ballot? Why did the Board feel the need to make the decision? What was the discussion? Pros & Cons? How were we to know these issues were under discussion without an AGENDA?..... Granted, we have a good judge in Mary Lou Rhodes and I personally have heard and observed the positive results of her efforts. My fear, that now they move to reduce her salary. She has been doing work of two + judges -- check it out on DA night -- and has gone out of her way to make herself available to law enforcement officials at all times. Now the rumor is that this move will be a cost savings!!!! This change should NOT be a COST CUTTING MOVE.... !!!! We're not trading "justice" for "dollars".... particularly given the workload and long term CONSEQUENCES for peoples' lives.
Why can't this administration simply "COMMUNICATE" with the rest of the Town...is it really too much to ask? If we had a July agenda and knew these issues were before the Board, then the public could have asked questions at the time. Granted, August 10 hearing... but once again...too little...too late.
