———————————————————–
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS – 1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of ‘lie, ?play,’ and ‘run.’
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6. What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 – 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000.. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour) [Do we even know what this is??--try clicking the link.]
1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, sub vocals, diphthong, cognate letters, lingual?s
4. Give four substitutes for caret ‘u.’ (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final ‘e.’ Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy,
sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks
and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena,Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each..
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.
Gives the saying ‘he only had an 8th grade education’ a whole new meaning, doesn’t it?!
No wonder they dropped out after 8th grade. They already knew more than they needed to know!
No, I don’t have the answers And I don’t think I ever did!
Have fun with this… I pass it on so we’re not the only ones who feel stupid!!!

Be sure, when you are complete with reading the questions and feel stumped, to read the Snopes Report and/or the report on Truth or Fiction website. Might ease the pain.
If you decided not to read the Snopes report, you might want to read this. A certification examination for prospective teachers, prepared by the Examiners of Teachers for the Public Schools in Zanesville, Ohio, in the late 1870s. Just as much fun and more “stuff” I have probably forgotten, if I ever knew it.

Well, the answer will surprise you.
Let’s look at the School Committee policies.
There is a policy on Assignment to schools.
This policy states:”Each school within the school system is defined by attendance boundaries set by the Committee. It is generally expected that youngsters will attend the school within the attendance district of his/her residence. However, the Committee recognizes that there are situations in which it is beneficial to both the youngster and the school system to allow a placement outside of the attendance district. The Superintendent is authorized to grant or deny written requests for individuals to attend a school outside designated attendance areas according to the following guidelines:”

Some of those guidelines are:
“2. When a youngster moves to a new residence and that new residence is in a different attendance district, a request to remain at the previously assigned school will be honored subject to the availability of space in the school.

4. In all cases in which a placement outside of the attendance district of residence is granted, parents will assume the responsibility for transportation to and from school.”

So it appears that the criteria to look at is the availability of space in the school..
The policy even states each schools space.
“A school is deemed to have space available if the total enrollment of the school is at or below its design capacity and the classroom to which the youngster is assigned will not exceed twenty-five students.”

Comprehensive Grammar School ——————–Design Capacity 1200 students
Marsh Grammar School ———————————-Design Capacity 1370 students
Tenney Grammar School ——————————–Design Capacity 1370 students
Timony Grammar School ——————————-Design Capacity 1370 students

I do not know the age of this officials child or what grade the child is in. It is actually irrelevant to the discussion.
Let’s look at school enrollment for the period in question. Keep in mind that children in the Central district will attend ,usually, the Timony School.

From the Department of Education website for Massachusetts we find;

Year  Marsh Timony Tenney
2007 1397 1456 1446
2008 1370 1427 1427
2009 1366 1454 1431
2010 1342 1437 1375
2011 1328 1379 1376

So the truth is that the Tenney and Timony schools have been over capacity for the period in question and per the published policy it was well within the discretion of the Superintendent to grant the waiver and even made sense to exacerbate overcrowding.

The newly elected official was, probably, just trying to maintain continuity in the child’s life and probably didn’t realize the additional benefit to the school system of his request.

The good news is that the data shows the School District has been making strides to even out the student count in our schools.

Hope this answers any questions about this issue.

One complaint about this photo op is that it takes place at a time when the beneficiaries of the largesse are unable to attend. Or…. Looking at the photo, maybe THEY were.

A new park was created in Downtown Methuen.

It has a long history of being funded, then the funding was “moved” to more pressing issues, then being funded again only to repeat the money moves. I have lost track of the number of times and the total amount of money sent to Methuen to clean up this site and do “something” proactive with it.

The site borders the Spicket River downtown and could be a really nice place to stop and view the River. Especially if one were tracing the Millionaire Walk.
However, the river bank was never cleaned up. It is bolstered by numerous oil tanks, ostensibly filled with concrete. A very lovely sight.

One politician who voted numerous times to accept the millions that flowed into the city, apparently was at the site for the first time and noted the old dock still precariously perched on the island in the river. The dock has been there for perhaps 80 plus years. The pol, who is between 66 and 68 had never noticed it.

I am told there were also comments about how much money was sent and how much was used for this enhancement. These questions from someone who should have those numbers on the tips of his fingers.

The article states that the money received was from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5), often referred to as the “Stimulus bill”.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was an act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

I guess the key is the last phrase “for other purposes.”

The primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately.
Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The term, infrastructure, typically refers to the technical structures that support a society, such as roads, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications, and so forth, and can be defined as “the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions.”

The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects and other items specifically included by Congress (?pork?: ed note.) .

So, as you well could have guessed, how much did we spend and what “stimulus” was created?
How many jobs were saved or created with this money?

Okay, so it was an infrastructure project.
How does an unmarked park in the center of a nonfunctional city downtown support,enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions.

What could the “other purposes” be?

I surely would have liked to see the City publish the costs to “build” this park.
The steps taken to “clean” the contaminated site.
Who thought it would be a good idea to move large rocks from somewhere and call them seats.
[Have you ever sat on a rock? Very cool...especially on your buttocks.]
Not very comfortable. Great place for children to play.

As always, I welcome your comments.

During the past few months an election cycle has taken place in the City of Methuen.

The Firefighters Union was determined to make sure their candidate wins. So they began attacking his opponent.

They started with the premise that “Big Lie” theory works.
They told a lie. Then they embellished it and began to believe it.

The lie was that Al Dinuccio had stated he would privatize the Methuen Fire Department Ambulance Service.
I searched and never found a reference in any speech that this statement was ever made.
[ed: if you find a link that shows this statement, I will publish it and retract this statement.]

UPDATE: 12/28/2011: This site, Double Talking Al, is no longer active on-line. The link does not work. Instead they have posted the videos on You Tube.
Here is the website the Firefighters Union created. Double Talking Al.

They could not even admit to owning it so they purchased private registration.
(This listing is a Network Solutions Private Registration when viewed on Whois site)
They also run the unofficial site: Methuen Fire department.com and the Methuen Fire.com

Here is the Methuen Fire Department official site.

They forgot to add a link to one of their articles, so I add it here. It is from a debate for the Massachusetts Congressional race, discussing State wide issues, not Methuen centric.

I read the site numerous times. I see that they want me to believe that they make $1.2 Million per year. My question becomes, If they make $1.2 million, why the $800,000 in overtime? Are you trying to tell us that your actual costs are $2 million in overtime? That smacks of mismanagement, methinks.

They also forgot to mention that Private Ambulance services are REQUIRED to post financial statements each year and that Municipal Ambulance Services are exempt from that requirement because the tax payer foots the bill and it is part of the budget process.

No one, that I know of, has made any derogatory remark about the level of service or training of the members of the Methuen Fire Service.

This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It’s her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX.
It was published November 18, 2010 in Letters to the Editor, “Fixing Social Security; Put me in charge of welfare, Medicare and housing grants” If you subscribe there was a followup letter, January 09, 2011 in Letters to the Editor, “Put us all in charge, our moral landscape, No COLA but free rides offered?” (comment: Put us all in charge … The idea that the proposals outlined in my Nov. 18 letter [“Put me in charge”] were “punitive” — to quote the Jan. 1 Tribune editorial “Our choices for top story of 2010” — proves that the Tribune is still playing an Austin tune …)

Put me in charge . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?

You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary.
If you want our money, accept our rules..
Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!

Yes that is correct.

For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.
You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check.
If you want to vote, then get a job.

Now, if you have the guts – PASS IT ON… Stand up my friends, Aloha

One thing I have noticed is that when the question of open government has come up, one candidate has consistently wanted to state that he is in favor of an open door policy.

This has left me curious if this candidate understands open government or is just trying to be politically correct in order to garner votes.

An open-door policy (re: business/corporate) is a policy where a manager, CEO, president or supervisor leaves their office door “open” in order to encourage communication with the all employees of that company. As the term implies, employees are encouraged to stop by whenever they feel the need to speak. Such a practice is viewed as a morale booster by letting employees feel as if they’re able to openly speak with their boss about numerous issues face-to-face, rather than by other means, such as e-mail or voice mail.
The idea is that having the door(s) open will make for a more comfortable and social work environment.
The actual implementation of an open-door policy for the purpose of addressing grievances or complaints should be handled very carefully. According to most experts, it is always the preferred method to immediately solve the problem of the employee. Human Resources should be immediately called and the issue should be resolved there and then. This sends out a great signal to all the employees that their voice is being heard.

From the above discussion it should be clear that an open door policy is not about open government. It shows that this candidate is interested in maintaining the status quo. His focus is on making sure that the existing municipal workforce is aware that his intention is to keep things the same and you, the employee, can always talk with him. This assumption is, of course, premised on the fact that the employee must support the candidate… duh!

Since some of the surrounding rhetoric (mostly by the same candidate and his other incumbent council member) has been about privitization and lay-offs, this gives him the ability to imply he is for maintaining the current processes.

Open Government is about giving the electorate the information they need to make informed choices.
If the answer to questions about open government are deflected to pander to the municipal employee vote, do you feel confident that this candidate will have your best interest at heart if elected.

I don’t.

Wouldn’t a program like that make sense. Why are these two Federal agencies not linked? How many computer systems does the country have, or need to manage fingerprint data?

They already work together on some aspects of cooperation.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today (06/22/2009)announced that, in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it has met all milestones set forth in a joint business plan announced April 2, 2008, resulting in the elimination of the FBI National Name Check Program (NNCP) backlog.
They have been working on it for some aspects of background checks.

The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS, is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to requests 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help our local, state, and federal partners solve and prevent crime and catch criminals and terrorists. IAFIS provides automated fingerprint search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

The FBI established the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division to serve as the focal point and central repository for criminal justice information services within the FBI. The CJIS Advisory Policy Board is a Shared Management Concept Process.The CJIS Division assumed management responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

IDENT is a program, begun 10 years ago, that had an original purpose of identifying immigration violators and hard-core criminals. You can check the status of IDENT/IAFIS Integration by reading Report No. I-2002-003 dated December 7, 2001.

It would appear that the Homeland Security Office is still working out the departmental integration process for a number of agencies under it’s cloak. The FBI and INS seem to be two of those with integration issues.
Looks like a good Organizational Chart would help this behemoth to move in the correct direction.

Just seems strange, and worthless, to have fingerprints, collected by the officer on the street, having to be sent twice, once to the national fingerprint and criminal history system and ,also, to an agency within the same umbrella group, the INS.

Read more about this in the following article.Illegal Immigration Fingerprint Program, Secure Communities, Has Advocates Up In Arms

I admit that I was hoping for a training program to be required for Councilors.

Read and make up you own mind.

August 22, 2011

OML 2011-35

Peter J. McQuillan, Esq.
City Solicitor
41 Pleasant St.
Methuen, MA 01844

RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint

Dear Attorney McQuillan,

This office received a complaint filed by Jack Burke, dated March 28, 2011, alleging that the Methuen City Council (the “Council”) violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, § 18- 25. The complaint alleges that Methuen City Council Chair John Cronin “sent around an e-mail to other city councilors asking them for their feedback” on whether they would support an item Councilor Cronin was considering adding to an upcoming Council meeting agenda. The complaint was first filed with the Council on January 18, 2011. We received the Council’s response to the original complaint on or about January 31, 2011.

We find that while the actions of Councilor Cronin violated the Open Meeting Law, the Council took appropriate measures to prevent a further violation and took remedial action to cure any effects of the violation. In reaching this determination we reviewed the January 18 and March 18, 2011 complaints; the Council’s January 31, 2011 response to the complaint; and the notice and minutes of the Council’s January 19, 2011 meeting. We also spoke with you by telephone on April 19, 2011. Finally, we reviewed a supplemental response from the Council, dated April 20, 2011.

FACTS
Over the past year, the City of Methuen has undertaken a charter review process through a Charter Commission. One member of the Charter Commission was Councilor Cronin. One topic debated by the Charter Commission was whether the City Council should consider a ballot question on abolishing term limits for municipal offices. The City Council would have to approve a ballot question before a municipal special election could be held. The Boston Globe reported on January 13, 2011, that Councilor Cronin would not bring the ballot question to the City Council for a vote “if he determine[d] he lack[ed] the council votes needed to schedule a special election.” John Laidler, Four Names Emerging as Methuen Mayoral Candidates, BOSTON GLOBE, January 13, 2011. On January 14, 2011, Councilor Cronin sent an email to all of his fellow city councilors with the subject line “TR-l 1-1 Resolution for the Submission of Term Limit Questions on the Ballot of a Special Municipal Election (Re. of CIr. Cronin).” The text of the email was as follow

The above requires a vote of the City Council to go to the state with a Home Rule Petition to have a Special Election. Please advise whether or not you support this concept via a phone call [phone number redacted] or email.

According to the Council’s January 31, 2011 response to the complaint, none of the councilors responded to the request by email, though three city councilors responded to the email by telephoning Councilor Cronin. h a letter to this Office dated April 20, 2011, in response to a specific request from our office, the Council affirmed that “the content of those telephone conversations was general in nature and referenced simply the agenda for the forthcoming regularly scheduled City Council meeting. No dialogue specifically referenced the subject matter of the complaint.”

The Council convened an open meeting on January 19, 2011. The meeting notice included the topic “TR- 11-6 Resolution for the Submission of Term Limit Questions on the ballot of a Special Municipal Election (Req of Chr Cronin).” The minutes of the meeting reflect that during the public participation portion of the meeting, the complainant, as well as another individual, addressed the Council regarding a possible Open Meeting Law violation by Councilor Cronin in soliciting Council members’ opinions regarding the term limits topic. Both residents requested that the Council remove the topic from the meeting agenda. When the Council reached the New Business portion of the meeting and began consideration of the term – limits topic, Councilor Cronin stated that he thought it was only fair that the public understand the Open Meeting Law allegations raised earlier in the meeting. Councilor Cronin explained that the topic was added to the agenda a week before the meeting, but he acknowledged that “the email I sent out, although I did not realize it at the time, was not appropriate according to the open meeting law.” Councilor Cronin went on to state for the record that, “[t]here was no intention of biding anything on my part because I talked to reporters before it went on the agenda and I told them what my plan was so there was no intention to hide anything from the public.” Councilor Cronin then explained his reasons for supporting the ballot question, but removed the agenda item from the Council’s consideration “because of the confusion I caused.” Council Cronin added that, “I want to make clear [that] there were no emails sent to me, I did not receive any emails, and I don’t believe the Council office received any responses.”

DISCUSSION
The Open Meeting Law was enacted “to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based.” Ghiglione v. School Conmittee of Southbridge, 376 Mass. 70, 72 (1978). A “deliberation” is defined as “an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The Open Meeting Law defines a “meeting” as “a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body’s jurisdiction.” Id. The law requires that meetings of a public body be properly noticed and open to members of the public, unless an executive session is convened. See G.L. c. 30A, § 20(a)—(b), 21.

Councilor Cronin’s January 14, 2011 email to a quorum of his fellow Council members, requesting that the members report whether or not they support a special election for a ballot question, was a deliberation in violation of the Open Meeting Law. The email was a “written communication” sent to a quorum of the Council on a matter of “public business within its jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30A, § 18. Councilor Cronin’s solicitation could have resulted in the Council making policy decisions outside of a public meeting had Council members replied. The councilors showed commendable restraint in declining to respond to Councilor Cronin’s email.

The three councilors who spoke with Councilor Cronin over the telephone regarding the meeting agenda did not address the email’s specific request, according to the Council’s April 20, 2011 letter. The Council affirmed that “the content of those telephone conversations was general in nature and referenced simply the agenda for the forthcoming regularly scheduled City Council meeting. No dialogue specifically referenced the subject matter of the complaint.” More to the point, the phone conversations with Councilor Cronin did not involve a quorum of the Council. There are nine members of the Council, and five councilors constitute a quorum. As the phone conversations, even if serial in nature, were between or among at most four members of the Council—less than a quorum—there is no violation of the Open Meeting Law resulting from these phone calls.

The Open Meeting Law complaint that followed this violation was filed with the Council on January 18, 2011. At the January 19, 2011 Council meeting, Councilor Cronin acknowledged his error and took responsibility for the violation. Councilor Cronin withdrew the term limits topic from the meeting agenda as it had been tainted by the email deliberation, even though it had been added to the meeting notice more than 48 hours before the meeting, as required by the Open Meeting Law. See G.L. c. 30A, § 20(b). Additionally, you wrote a memo in your capacity as City Solicitor, dated January 24, 2011, to the members of the City Council describing the nature of the violation and requesting all members to review the Guide to the Open Meeting Law provided by the Solicitor’s office. These steps, combined with the release of the email in question, were the proper remedial actions given the nature of the violation.

We note that, despite the complainant’s contention, we do not believe Councilor Cronin acted to intentionally violate the Open Meeting Law. Councilor Cronin even told a reporter that he was going to poll the members of the Council before adding the topic to the agenda. Once he was made aware of the violation, he acted appropriately to remedy the situation.

CONCLUSION
Councilor Cronin’s January 14, 2011 email was an inappropriate solicitation that resulted in deliberation by the Council in violation of the Open Meeting Law. However, we find that the Council’s actions in response to the complaint filed on January 18, 2011 were appropriate. The Council 1) acknowledged the potential for a violation; 2) publicly released the email sent by Councilor Cronin; 3) removed the tainted topic from the agenda; and 4) requested that all Council members review the Open Meeting Law Guidebook. We have confidence that the Council will avoid such email communications in the future.

We now consider this matter closed.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Sclarsic
Assistant Attorney General
Division of Open Government
Ph: 617-963-2045

cc: Jack Burke

Recently I have been asking a lot about motion to withdraw.
I am told that resolutions or ordinances have been withdrawn and when I attempt to verify those statements there is no recourse or trail to show that to be true.

I checked the rules and procedures of the Council and Rule X section b) states:A motion shall be made and seconded. To clarify the debate, the Chairman of the City Council may ask the Clerk to read the motion from the notes. A motion may not be withdrawn without the consent of the second. When the mover modifies the motion, the second may withdraw. (highlighting added by author)
This is the only use of the term withdraw in the document.

The bottom line is that if a motion is placed on the agenda and the agenda is accepted, all items on that agenda belong to the Council as a whole. If they are voted upon for first read, even if tabled for any reason, they still belong to the meeting/Council.

The only way they can be removed is by a motion to withdraw and a vote taken.
For too long the City Council has used informal processes to obscure or hide actions taken.

I ask that each City Councillor and Councilor candidate read Robert’s Rules and ask that the next Council FOLLOW there own processes and procedures.

Here is a more technical explanation of the Motion to withdraw taken from Sonoma State University based upon Robert’s Rules of Order Made Simple. Also see; Robert, Henry M. (2000). Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed., p. 283–284.

Requests and Inquiries

c. Request for Permission to Withdraw or Modify a Motion.
Although Robert’s Rules of Order specify that until a motion has been accepted by the chair it is the property of the mover, who can withdraw it or modify it as s/he chooses, a common practice is that once the agenda has been adopted, the items on it become the property of the meeting.
A person may not, therefore, withdraw a motion unilaterally; he or she may do so only with the consent of the meeting, which has adopted an agenda indicating that the motion is to be debated.
Similarly, a person cannot, without the consent of the meeting, change the wording of any motion that has been given ahead of time to those attending the meeting-for example, distributed in printed form in advance, printed on the agenda, a motion of which notice has been given at a previous meeting, etc.If a person does want to change the wording, they must move to substitute or amend before the body can consider the changed motion.
The usual way in which consent of a meeting to withdraw a motion is obtained is for the mover to ask the consent of the meeting to withdraw (or change the wording).
If no one objects, the chairperson announces that there being no objections, that the motion is withdrawn or that the modified wording is the motion to be debated.
If anyone objects, the chair can put a motion permitting the member to withdraw (or modify) or any two members may move and second that permission be granted.
A majority vote decides the question of modifying a motion–similar to amending the motion.
A two-thirds majority is needed for permission to withdraw a motion, as this has the effect of amending the agenda.

July 1, 2011
Pursuant to the provisions of the Methuen Municipal Code, §6-24, the Mayor announces the following vacancy:

Title of Position: Human Resource Director/Assistant City Solicitor
Status of Position: Permanent Full Time

Statement of Duties
The holder of this position will have the following duties and responsibilities:
1) Establish and maintain with confidentiality as required by law the employee records files including employee materials and health records in accordance with HIPPA laws.
2) Coordinate with and manage the civil service hiring process under Massachusetts Law. Said duties including the filing of all documents with and providing information to the Civil Service Commission, EEOC and applicable agencies.
3) Design and submit to the executive for approval and distribution human resources policies, procedures and programs. Coordinate and distribute all employment policies, procedures and programs to the departmental officers and employees as legally required.
4) Conduct and oversee training of employees on issues including ADA, FMLA, Mass. FMLA, MCAD, Civil Service ERISA, HIPA, COBRA, EEOC, and other employment related regulations.
5) Oversee departmental development, Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS), employee relations, training and development, benefits, compensation, organizational development, and employment.
6) Participate in collective bargaining as directed by the Mayor.
7) Manage recruiting and staffing logistics.
Oversee performance management and improvement systems.
9) Handle organization development.
10) Conduct and manage employment issues including internal inquiries of complaints and ensuring city government compliance with regulatory concerns and reporting.
11) Conduct employee orientation, development, and training.
12) Oversee employee relations.
13) Manage employee communication.
14) Manage employee safety, welfare, wellness and health; and
15) Manage employee services and counseling including workers compensation, IOD benefits, health benefits and insurance.
16) Establish and maintain workforce management policies.
17) Oversee and coordinate return to duty of employees on injury or other leave.
18) Under the direction of the City Solicitor, this person assists the City Solicitor with any legal matters that are presented to the city or school department. He/she shall represent the city in all proceedings before any court, administrative board or legislative committee. He/she will conduct civil lawsuits, draft legal documents, ordinances and resolutions and advise employees as to their legal rights.

Qualifications:
To perform this job successfully, an individual must be must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

The successful candidate will posses the following:

 Master’s degree or equivalent; or four to ten years’ related experience and/or training. A member in good standing with the Massachusetts Bar and experience in the field of municipal law.

 Ability to read, analyze and interpret common technical journals, financial reports, and legal documents. Ability to respond to common inquires or complaints from employees, regulatory agencies and members of the community.

 Ability to apply principals of logical thinking to a wide range of intellectual and practical problems.

Salary: $69,722 Min. – $83,666 Max.

Last date for applying: July 15, 2011

Qualified candidates submit resume and cover letter to: Human Resource Department, 41 Pleasant St. room 205, Methuen, MA 01844

____________________
William M. Manzi III
Mayor