Dear Editor,
Good morning after folks, once again, and I believe its can speak for Suzanne and Paul by saying thank you to everyone for your support on the Buzzell STM. Without everyone playing the parts that you played, we wouldn’t have gotten where we are today, with such an overwhelming victory to save that building.
I am enclosing the language that Suzanne submitted as Article 1 so that everyone understands and has the language of what we voted on last night. This language was hashed out for quite a bit of time between us, as well as a lawyer or two, we are confident that it does what we say it does.
Many troubling things came out in the proverbial laundry last night and I’m sure you saw much if not all of it, my finger being pointed directly at town counsel. Were you even remotely troubled at what you heard come out of his mouth? The fact you couldn’t get a simple “yes” out of his mouth said volumes, but what else did he not say.. or did he?
If you read the language that we presented, then listen to counsel’s statement do they make any sense? This articles main purpose was and always has been to “save the buzzell”, not to “rescind” the selectboards vote, in fact rescind is not even in the language. We the people cannot rescind something we did not give, however we can take another action as a town meeting that can stop any action to which they voted on, and thats by allocating or removing funding. The article accepted last night by voters “prohibits the expenditure of any funds for the demolition” of the Buzzell unless and until the people authorize it. Town counsel never ever mentioned that this directive IS within the scope and authority of town meeting, and we have gotten many assurances that this IS binding. In short, the selectboard took the vote, that vote remains but we removed the ability to spend town funds to follow through with that vote.
Second I really feel the need to address counsels statement that the Selectboard has some type of care, custody or control over buildings, he even cited MGL Ch 40 Sec 3. Sure, this General Law exists, however Wilmington’s Town Manager Act was enacted by the MA legislature through a Special Act, in wilmington, our Special Act goes into detail as to whom has jurisdiction over our buildings and in a case where there is a Special Act that is in conflict with a general law, the Special Act reigns supreme. Special Act powers have been addressed by courts time and again and there is no argument from anyone other than our counsel that this is the case. So what was the intent on counsel making the statements that he made? Are you happy with his assertion that town meeting doesnt have the power over our town? Why do you think he did not address the financial prohibition of article 1?
In the end, however you want to argue the legalese, the people spoke loudly on this cold, dark Thursday night meeting. The Selectboard knows darn well what the people want, the town manager saw as well. Future possible lawsuits and court actions aside if that building comes down anyway, elections are coming up quickly, this issue gets dealt with then.
Rob Fasulo
Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.
Wilmington Apple 