In Michael Rausch’s article on November 1 about the discussion about marijuana and allowing Mr. Taloumis to speak at the Bourne Town Meeting about a nonresident is a little like making sure that the Town will vote on a marijuana article in the affirmative.

My “Point of Order” was about the fact that the nonresident should not be allowed to talk. I did not want to embarrass the moderator, as he should not allow Mr. Taloumis because of Mr. Pickard’s conflict of interest with his son-in law, who was or is involved with the Haven Center. Mr. Pickard was a signor of the article for the repeal of the ban. In addition, Mr. Taloumis and the Haven Center are suing the Town of Bourne. Why should Mr. Taloumis be allowed to talk when the officials of the Town of Bourne (the town counsel) could not say anything because of the lawsuit?

In my many years of chairing both governmental and civic organizations as well as parliamentarian, a nonresident or nonmember (unless in a public meeting) a person could request to be allowed to speak and the moderator or chair would vote if the body did or didn’t want to allow the person to talk (only if the moderator or chair wanted the person to speak). In none of my dealings the moderator never said that “he can do what ever he wanted to do.”

William C. Stafford

Harmony Hill Road

Buzzards Bay

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.