I am feeling low today having heard of the death of my once Brother-in-law, Strohn Woodard. Strohn was a genuinely nice person. I never felt that Strohn had hidden agendas or ulterior motives. I miss him being in the world.
In today’s society, individuals must navigate evasive public narratives to find the truth.
A reconsideration petition of the outcome of the April 24 vote was submitted on May 1st 2024 to the school boards and at the Boothbay Town Office, but was not reported in the Newspaper until May 4th
On May 2nd, having received the petition, the CDS board certified the vote. It seems inappropriate, to me, that an interested party should certify the vote, rather than a neutral institution., just as inappropriate as a party with a special interest in a vote outcome initiating a reconsideration vote on that outcome.
An article appeared in the Register about the certification but just now when I looked for the article I could not find it although it is a recent article. It’s not the first article that has disappeared from the Boothbay Register search function.
The New Reconsideration Vote
The new reconsideration vote was organized by Patty Minerich, the protestor at the presentation meeting that took place before the vote, which I wrote about in the post
Boothbay’s Repeat School Rerendum: Is the System Broken?
Let’s look through the lens of constitutional and statutory laws and Supreme Court rulings
The petition has 430 signatures. It is a smart way of dealing with the situation of a vote that is arguably invalided by state law, but our leaders, who threw out decades of local work on the school charter and replaced it with the words “aligned with state law”, show no willingness to align with state law on the matter
Shortly before the vote, Patty Minerich and Denise Griffen organized a citizens’ meeting for an alternate petition targeting a July vote, for the elementary school, coming in at 10 million dollars for the repairs, only. Following the vote, they were practiced at gathering signatures and ready to go into action, gathering the signatures needed within the time frame determined by state law, within seven days after the vote.
As I am writing this in Substack, I clicked on the link to the petition that I created yesterday, but today the link leads to a 404 page. I clicked on the link in the Register and found that it still opens to the petition. Is there a difference in the code for the two locations?
Let’s compare!
Code copied from the Boothbay Register:
chrome extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.boothbayregister.com/sites/default/files/2024/05/field/attachments/Referendum%20Petition%20Final%2025April2024.pdf
Code copied from Boothbay Register and pasted into the link in my post: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.boothbayregister.com/sites/default/files/2024/05/field/attachments/Referendum%20Petition%20Final%2025April2024.pdf
Code as copied from the address field of the 404 page that opens in my Substack newsletter in response to above-linked code” https://chrome-extension/efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.boothbayregister.com/sites/default/files/2024/05/field/attachments/Referendum%20Petition%20Final%2025April2024.pdf
In the redirected address, the second “https://”is missing a forward slash causing it to become a 404 page.
How does that happen? Who is doing it?
Here is the petition uploaded to another server. Today it is working.
Since I can load the petition on a different server, I surmise that the redirect is targeting my Substack newsletter from the server end.
Is there an app that prevents another server from blocking one?
Another Instance
Last week when I submitted a Letter to the Editor to the Boothbay Register, about the state law, referenced in the newly repealed and replaced school charter.
I placed a link to the school charter in my letter but soon it led to a 404 page, with a missing forward slash in the web address. The server in this case is a Maine gov server.
My Letter to the Editor drew no response from the officials. Some citizens who voted yes called for further discussion to end, now that the reconsideration vote has delivered their preferred outcome. They say we should accept the outcome of the vote, which was presented to us a second time because the school officials would not accept the outcome of the first vote.
They don’t want to hear talk about the law, which they regard as having lesser importance than the outcome of the reconsideration vote, which to my knowledge was not initiated in alignment with state law, as a citizen’s petition. Instead, it was initiated by the boards.
Not only did the boards initiate the April 24 reconsideration vote (as far as I know), but they have also acted as the authority that certified the vote on May 2, a day after they received the new reconsideration petition, although the Boothbay Register article announcing that action has suddenly become scarce to find since the article on the new reconsideration vote appeared.
A Citizen’s Petition
The latest reconsideration petition filed by Patty Minerich is initiated in alignment with the process identified in state law. At the top of the petition, it says it is a citizens petition. The citizens are the designated authorities for initiating a reconsideration petition, providing they follow the rules. The new reconsideration vote petition is following the rules. So brilliant!
When it comes to determining how many voters must vote for the reconsideration petition to be valid, the question arises “Can a reconsideration vote that did not follow the legal initiation process be used as the measure of the number of voters? Sounds like a quagmire for the first reconsideration vote!
§3006. Proof of ordinances
The submission to any court or administrative tribunal of a municipal ordinance, bylaw, order or resolve of the legislative body or municipal officers of a municipality, when the ordinance, bylaw, order or resolve has been certified over the signature of the municipal clerk, is prima facie proof of the validity of that ordinance, bylaw, order or resolve. [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
Does “ordinance, bylaw, order or resolve” include reconsideration referendums? I think so.
The reconsideration referendum vote for a thirty million dollar “repair” of the elementary school was held on April 24th.
I first noticed an article titled What if April’s referendum fails? on the 25th. This article reports that the costs of the repairs of the elementary and high school, without additional add-on new buildings, were presented by the architects in September, even before the November vote but I was learning of it for the first time.
According to the CSD documents from September, BRES and BRHS need over $32 million combined in priority repairs over the next five years to manage failing systems.
The presenters have rationalized the costs of adding new buildings as part of repair costs like so:
2. Why was adding 7th and 8th grade classrooms included in the repair project? We discovered that building the new 7th and 8th classrooms would provide a place for students of all grades to go while their classrooms were being repaired, instead of purchasing costly temporary modular pods (that would require plumbing, electricity, communication and safety.) When the repairs are complete we would be left with permanent appropriate 7th and 8th grade space at a cost comparable to the temporary units. Additionally, the new 7th and 8th grade space would free much needed space for interventions required today, such as Speech, Occupational and Physical Therapist, Reading and Math support, Social Workers, Psychologist, General Education Specialists and more! SOURCE
Why can’t the students and the teachers conduct their classes over zoom while repairs are going on?
The boards had the option of delivering a referendum for the repairs (only) for both the high school and the elementary school at almost the same cost as the reconsideration referendum for the “repairs” of the elementary school alone. A referendum for the repair costs, only, for both school systems would have been an appropriate response to the message sent by voters last November and would not be a reconsideration vote.
Instead, the boards sent the message that they do not accept the results of the November election, acting more like a privately held interest than a public one.
In a half-truth reality to which many have become accustomed, the power elite would run another referendum just like the last one, win it and that will be the end of it, but our school charter as ruled by state law is of the board’s own making since it was the boards who replaced our home rule authority with the words “align with state law”.
§3001. Ordinance power
Any municipality, by the adoption, amendment or repeal of ordinances or bylaws, may exercise any power or function which the Legislature has power to confer upon it, which is not denied either expressly or by clear implication, and exercise any power or function granted to the municipality by the Constitution of Maine, general law or charter. [PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1987, c. 737, Pt. C, §106 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 6 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 9, §2 (AMD); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §§8, 10 (AMD).]
The above is how it works under Home Rule. Now the boards want to operate like we have home rule and don’t have to follow the educational referendum statute in state law. That once might have been the case. It is frequently stated in the Maine statutes that if there is a conflict between local ordinances and state law, local ordinances are given priority, but the boards gave that up when they repealed our school charter and replaced it with the words “align with state law”.
It is apparent everywhere, particularly on Maine Bill Search and Maine Statute Search that people in high places are trying to manipulate the information to which the public has access. The landing page to the school charter in the link in my Letter to the Editor was changed to a page that says “Your connection is not private” When one clicks on the advanced options, access to the school charter continues to be blocked.
I discovered a work-a-round. In the address bar, delete everything up to the part that starts with http://, then click and the page opens to the charter. Then I downloaded the charter and uploaded it to another server.
Who is doing this? It happens on Maine gov, it happens on the Boothbay Register, and it happens in this newsletter. It happens too frequently and too intentionally to be co-incidence.
I became so curious about the code so I investigated. If I delete everything in the address bar on the “insecure” or “404” landing page. so that the code becomes this: https:/www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1149&item=1&snum=131 And then I hit enter, the link connects to the Town Charter.
If I copy that code into Google, it connects to the Town Charter
But if I take that same code and I try to create a link to the charter from this newsletter something weird happens, The link creates a landing page based on the home page for this newsletter which displays a list of stories with “Page Not Found: at the top, where normally the large pictures of the most recent stores are displayed See HERE
This is the code I used for the link in my Substack newsletter:: https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1149&item=1&snum=131 The Link to Charter points to that code but when posted from within my Substack newsletter, the same code led to the page in the image above
Or it did the other day before I posted about it in the comments to my Letter to the Editor. now the same Link leads to what it is supposed to, the Boothbay School Charter. Maybe it will last!
Is it an app that can access various sites and create interference? I have never found anything written about it. One would expect the security to be ironclad on a government website but manipulation of information seems even more prolific in the bills and statutes than anywhere else.
Considering All Options
The sales pitch for education highlights STEAM skills at the expense of other fields of knowledge such as history, philosophy, and law. The students given voice support the new school “repairs” as a materialistic entitlement due to the students, who come across as being groomed to become the next generation 1%ers, or at least upper-income earners for whom all must sacrifice for their pleasure.
As I listen to complaints from the students about the hardships of dealing with a cafeteria that was not specifically built for that purpose, I am confronted with how am I going to deal with all of the Andersen Design “assets” when I move into a smaller living space? These are the same assets that are used by the system to deny benefits for which I would otherwise be entitled, such as a pro bono probate lawyer to help to deal with my special circumstances. The government describes my assets as “the ceramics” but I have no space to display the physical ceramics to the public. As I have read on legal sites, assets are not qualifiable as monetary assets if they cannot readily be transformed into cash.
Thanks to Art Storefronts, I have a better way of presenting the ceramics online, and this came about because of my self-created assets, my photographs, which I had been doing as a hobby.
Art Storefront generated these merchandise images. Some of it I want to change but I liked the way the Tote Bags turned out:
Purchase your unique Tote Bag Here! Pillows are also available! And printsas cards or environmentally-sized Wall art on your choice of medium!
When you purchase merchandise, the retail sale is dispersed to the collective printers, makers, designers, and service providers contributing to bringing this product to the market. This is a maker’s network that feels like it was designed for and by the individualistic product maker.
The Art Storefront system is a heterarchical system in which design drives sales for “makers” which includes a professional print-making company and a company that provides the merchandise. Andersen Design could also become a merchandise-providing company but that’s further on down the road. The Museum Of American Designer Craftsmen could further a local small enterprise makers community, that could contribute to a merchandise-providing company, (would need to be negotiated with Art Storefronts)
I am very much in awe of the Art Store Front system for the way that it mutually serves the interests of several industries and is fair to all. This is a desirable alternative for a small rural peninsula to that of corporate feudalism installed through our public school system and associates. Those pushing corporate feudalism through the educational system don’t want to allow philosophical, historical, or legal discussion. Their agenda is single-minded and single-purpose, complete with talking points with single-minded, single-purpose meanings such as “what’s best for the students” spoken as if the only thing that can be is a public school system of ever-escalating costs.
As the future 1%er bemoans not having the perfect cafeteria, my thoughts go to my inherited “assets” as the assets of a business that taught STEAM skills on the job for decades but received no support from my community or state when I needed it. I am not alone in making a comparison. Many have to make do.
Let’s build a better world from the roots and so bye-bye to the oligarchy system.
Mackenzie Andersen’s The Individual vs The Empire! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
