Register To ParticipateBehind the Times
Behind the tally sheets
Posted on May 6, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Clinton | Leave a Comment
Here’s my favorite part of covering elections: deconstructing the results. If you’re following along at home, the results quoted here are the hand and machine tallies as they stood Tuesday afternoon. Nine provisional ballots are excluded from these results.
Herewith, in no particular order and with no guarantees of relevance, a few observations on the exercise in democracy just concluded opposite Central Park:
* Most popular candidate on the ballot, bar none: I would have guessed John Hogan, moderator, but no — Emily McNally of the Housing Authority got 2,038 votes, 17 better than Hogan and 1,664 votes ahead of the lowest vote-getter on the list.
* Most popular candidate, contested races only: Not Kathleen Sheridan, although she was far-and-away the top vote-getter among selectmen. This honor goes to Assessor David Baird, 1,952.
* Most popular losing candidate: Bob Latini did not make it onto the Planning Board despite polling 1,029, which is more than four of the five selectman candidates got. Yes, it’s not fair to compare one race to another. But it is interesting. Put another way: Nobody with more than 1,100 votes failed to win in Monday’s election.
* Least popular winning candidate: LeBlanc, 914, followed by the two winners of the other five-for-three (typo) five-for-two race, Michael Sheridan (937) and George Oberg (956) for Parks and Rec. Put another way: Nobody with fewer than 900 votes won a race.
* Least popular winning candidate, one-on-one races only: Paul Curran, 1,251, Planning Board.
* Least popular winning candidate, uncontested races only: R. Peter Notaro, 1,867, Board of Health.
* Most blanks and write-ins: School Committee, 1,644. That’s only 100-150 fewer than both winning candidates! Is it possible that Robert Ebstein and Kathy Trautner were lucky not to have challengers this year? There’s an uncertainty principle at work here, of course; perhaps many of the blanks were admissions of ignorance, and if there were challengers, people would have taken more time to read up on the race and some would have voted for the incumbents.
* Only race where blanks and write-ins outpolled a living, breathing human being: Library trustee, 1,071, more than 300 votes more than the losing candidate in that contest. Was this the result of “bullet” voting, or is it just that people don’t care about the library trustees and skip them on the ballot? Note that the library blanks would have won the second seat on the select board, or the first seat on Parks and Rec. And it’s unfair to compare election races to each other.
* Fewest blanks and write-ins: Town collector, 173. Apparently practically everyone had an opinion on this one. By comparison, there were 268 blanks or write-ins for assessor, and 265 for solicitor.
* Fewest blanks and write-ins, uncontested races only: Housing Authority, 556. This necessarily follows McNally having the largest vote total.
* Turnout by precinct: In theory the town’s four precincts have equal populations. In practice, we saw wild differences between downtown and northern Clinton (precincts 1 and 2) and the Acre, Burditt Hill and western Clinton (precincts 3 and 4). Turnout was 587 in 1 and 589 in 2. It was 722 in 3 and 696 in 4.
* Selectman votes by precinct: Sheridan won all four, and by huge margins in 3 and 4. LeBlanc got second place in 1 and 4. He actually came in last in Precinct 2 (downtown/Central Park/Water Street). Second-place finisher in Precinct 2: Steven Mendoza, who came in last in the general balloting. In Precinct 3 (the Acre/Grove Street/eastern Burditt Hill), second place was a dead heat between the two incumbents, Joe Notaro and Bob Pasquale, both of whom live in that precinct.
* Selectman votes by percentage, by precinct: Notaro and Pasquale both made their worst showings in Precinct 4 (possibly because of the boat ramp and the rifle range?), 29 and 28 percent, respectively. Their best results were in Precinct 3: 37 percent each. They were within one percentage point of each other in every precinct. LeBlanc’s worst precinct was 2, 32 percent; his best was 4, 39 percent (nor surprising; he lives there). Mendoza had the worst one-precinct share of them all, 26 percent in Precinct 3; his best was Precinct 2, 37 percent. Sheridan was the only one to crack the 40s, doing so in three precincts (48 percent in 3 and 4, 42 in 1). Her worst showing was 39 percent in 2.
* Parks and Rec. votes by precinct: Oberg won 1 and 2. Sheridan, the incumbent, wasn’t first place in any precinct, although he finished second in 1, 3 and 4. The winner in 3 was Acre resident E. Russell Grady Sr. The winner in 4 was Jillian Bonci (who doesn’t live there).
* Difference between machine count (announced with much fanfare in the auditorium starting at 8:10ish Monday night, and reported in the Tuesday morning papers) and hand count (carried out in quiet after almost everyone had gone home, and reported in the Thursday Times & Courier): 76 votes. Enough to have potentially changed the outcomes of the second-seat races for selectman and Parks and Recreation (although, in the event, they did not).
That’s enough for now.
Tomorrow: It’s important to have GAELS
Posted on April 23, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Mike's posts, Tomorrow's Times | Leave a Comment
Featured on the Times & Courier’s April 24 front page is the GAELS program at Clinton High School: It’s not just the name of the mascot, it’s an acronym for Greatness in Athletics, Education, Leadership and Service.
The program awards high schoolers for excellence in pursuits that don’t always make the front page of a newspaper. For example, students we interviewed this week include a boy who helped start up the girls cross-country running team and a girl who volunteered at the town Historical Society.
(An aside: One of the constraints of printing news on dead trees is that we occasionally run out of space. That’s what happened this week. Reporter Jason Crotty’s story was edited down by a couple hundred words before it reached the press, but through the wonders of the Internet, you can read the full story in its electronic version tomorrow.)
Also on the front this week is the third in our series of interviews with Clinton’s selectmen candidates; an update on businesses eyeing Old Union Turnpike in North Lancaster; and a story on the old Bigelow Mills in Clinton, where a loft developer recently won a preservation award from the town Historical Commission.
Tomorrow: Timeout on the field
Posted on April 16, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Mike's posts, Sports, Tomorrow's Times | Leave a Comment
It’s not as though the Nashoba Regional School District has kept its turf field plans top-secret — we had a story on the proposal to resurface the high school fields as far back as November, and the superintendent’s take last month — but officials in Lancaster are all of a sudden upset over the School Committee’s lack of communication over the $1.28 million price tag, as we report this week on our front page.
Apparently this isn’t just a Lancaster thing: first to raise the concern was Bolton Advisory Committee member Dave Lindsay on the editorial page of our sister paper The Bolton Common last week. According to Lindsay, Bolton financial officials found out that the school district would need to borrow the money just an hour and a half before the Town Meeting warrant was to be closed; if it hadn’t been put on the warrant, he writes, Nashoba could have borrowed the money without any taxpayer input.
(Lancaster officials this week were able to squeeze an article onto the May 5 Town Meeting agenda — and the phrasing is “to disapprove” the turf field funding.)
Meanwhile, in this Friday’s Bolton Common, two of that town’s School Committee members argue that the rollout may have been botched, but the turf field project will benefit both the school and surrounding communities:
Clearly there were some hard feelings, and we accept responsibility for that. But even at that late hour, we felt this was a critical project and that voters should have a say in our plans without having to call a special Town Meeting. This is not just a school project; it will also be a resource for the community.
Should make for some interesting discussion May 5.
Elsewhere on our front page this week, Clinton remembers former School Superintendent Brendon Bailey and neighbors from two towns oppose rifle shooting at the Brandli parcel. All this and more is yours for 75 cents at all reputable newsstands in Clinton and Lancaster, and in your mailbox tomorrow.
Your Wekepeke wishes
Posted on April 14, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Clinton, Mike's posts, Newsroom news, Sterling | Leave a Comment
This week the Times & Courier is restarting what we hope will be a weekly feature, a Web-based opinion poll. The poll will appear every Monday as the first item under “More Headlines” on the Wicked Local Clinton and Wicked Local Lancaster homepages.
This week’s poll asks what Clinton selectmen should do with the Wekepeke reservation in Sterling, following last week’s unanimous vote to reject Nestle’s bid to bottle water there.
Results will be published every Thursday on the Times & Courier’s Viewpoint (opinion) pages. Be sure to check back every Monday for a fresh question.
Sterling 5, Nestle 0
Posted on April 9, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Clinton, Mike's posts, Sterling | Leave a Comment
That’s not quite how the discussion went, but no matter how you spin it, Clinton selectmen voted unanimously tonight to reject Nestle’s bid for Wekepeke water. Selectman Joseph Notaro Jr. said he didn’t like the “risk-reward tradeoff” of the deal — specifically mentioning the threat of lawsuits from Sterling residents, and the lower-than-anticipated payments Nestle would make — and his colleagues agreed.
Selectmen also voted unanimously to ask their town attorney to give a report clarifying Clinton’s rights on the Wekepeke land. Notaro wanted to know if Clinton has rights to ground water, surface water and the use of the land; Selectman Kevin Haley added the question of whether Clinton could sell it; Selectman Anthony Fiorentino said Clinton should look into whether, and how much of, Sterling’s zoning bylaws apply. Both Haley and Fiorentino had said they still want to do something with the Wekepeke land to raise funds to repair the dams.
Water on the brain
Posted on April 7, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Clinton, Mike's posts, Sterling | Leave a Comment
More Wekepeke brouhaha over the past week, as the saga of a salacious boy and his overactive water drill threatens to eclipse Tom Brady, “fashionisto” (66 reader comments as of Monday afternoon!), as the top story in New England today.
A quick run-through:
First there’s this NECN video report on the controversy. Not much we didn’t already know here. Good b-roll of Town Administrator Michael Ward walking up the steps of Town Hall. Also an admission: Clinton’s town lawyers are now “looking into” whether Clinton has the legal right to sell Wekepeke water. I thought Clinton officials had previously considered this settled in Clinton’s favor.
Then there’s the Boston Globe story from April 4. Clinton seeking to exploit a town-owned resource is a “slap in the face,” says one activist. One small criticism: the Globe graphic of the area in dispute appears to be an illustration of the Wekepeke watershed, which stretches to the east of Route 12 into Lancaster; as far as I know (I may be wrong), the “area in dispute” is limited to the 564 acres owned by Clinton, which (as far as I know) are west of Route 12 in Sterling and a sliver of Leominster.
The story, like many of ours in this thread, treats the battle as “Clinton versus Sterling” or “Clinton and Nestle versus Sterling and environmentalists.” This is not entirely accurate. Some in Clinton oppose the Nestle deal; some in Sterling are, at least, not opposed to it. And far from the battle royale it’s made out to be, there’s talk of a possible compromise in Sterling — something we don’t hear about much in Clinton, much as it seems folks in Sterling don’t hear much of the “moderate” or even anti-Nestle views some Clintonians hold. From The Globe:
In Sterling, some officials say they hope to derail the Nestle plan by striking a deal with Clinton. Paul Sushchyk, a Sterling selectman, said he would like to see Sterling co-own the Wekepeke lands to aid Clinton with the costs of upkeep. The state has ordered Clinton to make repairs of dams on the Wekepeke lands, which are estimated to cost more than $1 million.
And on the World-Wide Internets: Last week supercybersleuth Ken MacGray of ClintonMass.com found what he’s calling the “Wekepedia” article, which is about the watershed but briefly touches on the Nestle controversy. It doesn’t read much like an encyclopedia, and for a few hours Thursday it had some blatant editorializing on it. This is why we try not to use Wikipedia as a reference, although apparently they’re using us.
In the comments of my blog post on this subject last week, Tony Marini pointed out that the Sterling Concerned Citizens now have their own Web site to rebut the Nestle corporate brochure that went up in February (and appears to be down as of Monday afternoon … maybe that’s just my connection, though).
As of a week and a half ago, the Concerned Citizens say they’ve got 510 signatures on a petition and hope to get to 1,500. The petition reads:
We, the undersigned, believe that water is a basic right for all people, and that freshwater is a shared legacy, a public trust and the essence of life itself. Furthermore, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are guaranteed the right to clean air and water by Article 97 of the Articles of the Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. Therefore, we demand that all water located in the Town of Sterling be reserved solely for purposes of the public good and never be sold for profit. We also demand that the Board of Selectmen of Sterling do all that is necessary and required to prohibit and prevent the Town of Clinton from selling or permitting the sale of any waters of the Wekepeke.
There’s also supposedly going to be a “democracy school,” which sounds like a combination between political rally, class-action lawsuit and civics course on steroids, later this month.
And then there’s ongoing news aggregation from the Sterling side of things, for which there’s no better source than Lance Harris’ No Drumlins Blog. And that’s not just me talking — Boston metro blogger Universal Hub has taken notice, too.
Much ado about ‘nothing’
Posted on April 1, 2008 by Michael Ballway
Filed Under Clinton, Mike's posts, Sterling | 3 Comments
Lance Harris over at No Drumlins feels “insulted” by Selectmen Chairman Robert Pasquale’s comments to a Sterling selectman last week. Talking about local opposition to Nestle drilling for water at the Wekepeke reservation, Pasquale said Sterlingites’ fears were “concern about nothing” and that “those people up there in Sterling have a lot of time on their hands.”
While it seems clear that Mr. Pasquale couldn’t care less what the people of Sterling think, he could at least be polite to our elected representatives. It’s particularly disrespectful that a Clinton Selectman would make this comment with his equal from Sterling in attendance.
Along the same vein, at ClintonMass.com Pasquale’s critics and defenders have been out in force. The latter remind us that Bob recently underwent painful surgery, and speculate that he might have felt badgered by what he feels are unreasonable demands from Sterling community activists.
Either way, however, Pasquale is Clinton’s highest elected official and the tone he strikes reflects upon the town, just as certainly as the president’s snubbing of a foreign leader would reflect upon America. One of Bob’s charms is that he speaks his mind, but a little honey here and there, especially when speaking from the seat of power on Wednesday night, doesn’t hurt.
Meanwhile, former Times & Courier editor (and current Sterling resident) Karen Sharpe writes about Wekepeke in yesterday’s Worcester Business Journal:
… that battle has already begun in Clinton and Sterling, where the value of water and land preservation is up against the pressures of municipal pocketbooks and corporate greed. Global food behemoth Nestle, like a salacious boy preying on a vulnerable girl, has come to court Clinton, telling the town everything it wants to hear, that it will pay a lot of money to pump water from deep beneath nearly 600 acres of Clinton-owned land in Sterling …
She goes on to question Clinton’s legal claim to the aquifer and say it’s “insulting and irresponsible” for the town to fail to maintain the reservoirs for 40 years, and suddenly become interested in them only when profits can be made.
keep looking »
