From the Joe Kennedy campaign

Email today from the Joe Kennedy for Congress campaign –

++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Team Medfield!

Joe had a fantastic time at Medfield Day this past Saturday- thank you to all that came to show support and meet our future Congressman!

After a great showing in the primary, we’re now charging ahead into the general election– only 48 days away! Our focus is on identifying support for Joe with unenrolled voters through phone calls and knocking on neighbor’s doors.

We need your help now more than ever- here are ways to get involved:

1. Call voters— Join us at our Medway office (116 Main St.) as we call unenrolled voters Monday-Fridays 10am-1pm and 5-9pm and also Sundays 4-8pm.

2. Knock doors — The best way to talk to voters is neighbor to neighbor- can you help us canvass your neighborhood? We canvass every Saturday and Sunday at 10am.

3. Show your support— Display a lawn sign- email Eileen Desorgher (eileen.desorgher@verizon.net) to request a sign.

4. Fuel the Team— donate dinner or snacks for our volunteers at our Medway Office.

5. Spread the word— forward this email to your friends and family to get them involved!

We have a lot of work to do over the next 7 weeks and now is the time to get involved! Email me at rgoldenberg@joekennedy2012 or call me at 585-330-8221 to join our team!

Best,
Rachael
—
Rachael Goldenberg
Field Organizer
Joe Kennedy for Congress
585-330-8221 (c)
617-964-2012 (o)

Congressional debate 10/10/14 at 4PM

Email from Commonwealth Magazine this afternoon –

CommonWealth magazine presents:

An Issues Debate in Massachusetts’ 4th Congressional District

The American Dream:
Jobs, the economy, and the future of the middle class

With Sean Bielat and Joseph Kennedy III

Wednesday, October 10th, 4:00 p.m.
UMass Darthmouth’s Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Center
151 Martine Street, Fall River, MA

Debate Partner

UMass Dartmouth

Moderator: Michael Goodman, Chair of the Department of Public Policy at UMass Dartmouth

Questions will be posed by CommonWealth magazine, the Fall River Herald News, and the Taunton Daily Gazette.

The event is open to members of the public who register in advance. Please click here or email us to register.

Registration is required and seating is limited, so prompt registration is suggested.

Media are encouraged to RSVP to Christina Prignano at Cprignano@massinc.org.

Ann & Mark reject review for best practices by former selectmen

At my request the Board of Selectmen constituted the town’s former selectmen as a Board of Advisers, so that the town could continue to benefit from the depth of knowledge and understanding of municipal governments that they had acquired as selectmen.  Last night I suggested that the Board of Selectmen ask that group to review how we operate the town departments, to make sure that we were using the best practices and the town was being well served in all instances.

Ann and Mark rejected doing so, for the same stated reason, that the former selectmen had been gone too long from town government to still have any useful information.  Too bad, as it is a real lost opportunity for the town.

This was my email to the former selectmen to ask them if they would consider serving in the capacity I envisioned –

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John, Richard, Ed, Harry, and Paul,

I do not know if Mike Sullivan ever informed you, but at my request, the Board of Selectmen appointed all the town’s former selectmen to a Board of Advisers, in an effort to harness and take advantage of all that you learned as a result of being selectmen.  My thought was that there was so much learning and institutional memory that happens from being a selectman, that the Town of Medfield should try to make use of those skills that you developed.

Mike and I have talked about asking you to look at the issue of the town’s liability for post employment benefits for medical care, which the actuaries say is something like a $40m. liability number for Medfield, but a state appointed commission is looking into that issue on a state wide basis now (given that every city and town in the state is hugely effected) and they are supposed to report back some time this fall, so we thought it best to hear what the commission says first.

The second task that has occurred to me to ask you all to do, and one that I am going to ask at our selectmen meeting next Tuesday be delegated to your Board of Advisers, is that we ask you to do a top to bottom review of the policies and procedures of every town department, so that we can be assured that the town is using the best practices that are available.  I could envision you meeting with someone like Medfield resident Jeremy Marsette, who is the town engineer for Framingham and the chair of our Water & Sewer Board, to learn what he has seen done elsewhere, and then meet with Ken to see if we are doing those things.  Similarly with Rachel Brown of the Personnel Board, whose consulting practice has her dealing with towns all over the state.

This is the item that I have put on the agenda:

Referral by the Board of Selectmen to our Board of Advisers (comprised of all former selectmen) the request that they conduct a top to bottom review of the policies and procedures of all town departments, to see if Medfield is using best practices, and to report back to the Board of Selectmen on their findings and to recommend what changes should be made, if any.

Please feel free to join the Board of Selectmen at our meeting next Tuesday evening when I will be asking Ann and Mark to join me in asking you to undertake this task and to discuss any details.

BTW, I asked Sandra Muncey about this idea of a council of former selectmen, and she had no interest in participating.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Pete

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Ann and Mark indicated that they were willing to entertain future discrete tasks being assigned to the former selectmen to perform.

Medical marijuana ballot issue

Massachusetts has a November citizen petition ballot question about legalizing medical marijuana, that has basically been totally paid for personally by the CEO of Progressive Insurance.  He contributed $990,000 of the $996,000 the vote “Yes” effort has raised.
According to Marilyn G. Belmonte, Executive Director of Healthy Outcomes, Inc.,P. O. Box 1290,Burlington, MA 01803 (781-572-1478) http://www.gethealthyoutcomes.org/  many people are concerned by the data showing that legalizing medical marijuana will likely increase marijuana use by our young people, which statistically increases their likelihood of disrupted brain development.   Her group has put out the following materials to oppose the ballot question –
=====================

In November, voters will have the opportunity to vote on Ballot Question 3, Medical Use of Marijuana.

 We are opposed to Question 3 because the language of this proposed law will cause problems for our young people.

As a community coalition working to prevent youth substance abuse, an essential priority is to reduce teen marijuana use through environmental strategies that decrease access to marijuana and increase perception of harm of the drug.  Current research shows:

  • There is a direct correlation between “medical” marijuana initiatives and decreases in perception of harm and social disapproval. States that have “medical” marijuana programs have among the lowest perceptions of harm among youth in the nation.[1]  The 2011 Monitoring the Future Survey reports that 22.7 percent of U.S. high school seniors thought that there was a great risk of harm from smoking marijuana occasionally, down from 26.6 percent in 2003.[2]  Efforts to pass “medical” marijuana initiatives further normalize marijuana use among youth and thereby lessen the perceptions of its dangers and negative effects, which will result in increases in youth
    marijuana use.
  • State that have legalized marijuana as medicine are experiencing widespread use and abuse of marijuana.  States with “medical” marijuana laws have higher marijuana abuse and dependence rates almost twice as high than states without such laws.[3]
  • Medical marijuana is being diverted to youth through increased supply and easy access.  The 2008-2009 State Estimates of Drug Abuse show that four of the top five states, and 14 of the 18 states with the highest percentage of past month marijuana users ages 12-17 are states with “medical marijuana” programs.[4]  A 2012 study shows that among adoles­cents in substance abuse treatment in Denver, Colorado, 74% had used someone else’s medical marijuana a median of 50 times.[5]
  • Marijuana is addictive. The National Institutes of Health found that the earlier marijuana use is initiated, the higher the risk for drug abuse and dependence. Those who begin using the drug in their teens have approximately a one-in-six chance of developing marijuana dependence.[6] In fact, children and teens are six times likelier to be in treatment for marijuana than for all other illegal drugs combined.[7] Addiction rates among 12-17 year olds are among the highest levels nationally in states that have “medical marijuana” programs.[8]
  • Marijuana use negatively impacts adolescent brain development. A study by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and the National Institute on Mental Health, found that adolescents and young adults who are heavy users of marijuana are more likely than non-users to have disrupted brain development. Researchers found abnormalities in areas of the brain that interconnect brain regions involved in memory, attention, decision-making,

language and executive functioning skills.  A new, 2012 study indicates an average eight-point drop in IQ among teens who use marijuana.[9]

  • Marijuana Use Negatively Impacts Academic Achievement.  Youth with an average grade of D or below were more than four times as likely to have used marijuana in the past year than youth with an average grade of A.[10] The more a student uses drugs such as marijuana, the lower their grade point average is likely to be and the more likely they are to drop out of school.[11]
  • Marijuana use negatively impacts employability.  More than 6,000 companies nationwide and scores of industries and professions require a pre-employment drug test, according to The Definitive List of Companies that Drug Test (available at www.testclear.com). 6.6% of high school seniors already smoke marijuana on a daily basis would fail any required pre-employment drug test at the more than 6,000 companies that require it. “Medical” marijuana initiatives would exacerbate this problem.
  • States that have approved “medical marijuana” use have experienced costly highway safety issues. 20% of crashes in the U.S. are caused by drugged driving.[12] Marijuana is the most prevalent illegal drug detected in impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. The Colorado Department of Transportation found that after passing “medical marijuana” legislation in the state, drivers who tested positive for marijuana in fatal car crashes DOUBLED between 2006 and 2010.  In 2010, six cities in California conducted nighttime weekend voluntary roadside surveys and found that the percentage of drivers who tested positive for marijuana (8.4%) was greater than the percentage that were using alcohol (7.6%).[13]

Massachusetts’ youth already smoke marijuana at a rate 30% higher than the national average, where one in three high school students currently smoke marijuana.  Our local youth marijuana use rates reflect the state numbers.  Ballot Question 3 to legalize marijuana as medicine would increase both access to marijuana, and social acceptability of the drug – and the research clearly shows that these two variables have direct causal link to increased teen marijuana use.

WaylandCares cannot support legislation that has the strong, likely potential to increase youth marijuana use.  Further,

, opposes the legalization of medicinal marijuana and cannot support legislation t

This experiment is failing in other states.

We know from other states that have passed “medical” marijua­na laws, that this is a failed public health and safety experiment. Marijuana is illegal under federal law. Let’s not join the states that are now spending enormous resources to address the legal conflicts, addiction and exploitation that Question 3 would promote. Real compassion means real medicine determined through scientific process. Drugs should not circumvent the rigorous study, clinical trials and research that determines what true medicine is, and they should be dispensed properly through our pharmaceutical system. Anything less puts our public at risk and results in unforeseen, unintended consequences that are harmful to people and the communities in which they live.

For the health and welfare of our youth and neighborhoods____________ opposes Ballot Question 3 and its system for dispensing marijuana in communities across the Commonwealth.


[1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), State Estimates from the 2008- 2009 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health

[2] Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (December 14, 2011). University of Michigan, 2011 Monitoring the Future Study

[3] Cerda, M. et al. (2011). Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Found at http://www.columbia.edu/~dsh2/pdf/MedicalMarijuana.pdf; and Wall, M. et al (2011). Adolescent Marijuana Use from 2002 to 2008: Higher in States with Medical Marijuana Laws, Cause Still Unclear, Annals of epidemiology, Vol 21 issue 9 Pages 714-716

[4] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), State Estimates from the 2008- 2009 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health

[5] Salomonsen-Sautel, S. et al (2012).  Medical Marijuana Use Among Adolescents in Substance Abuse Treatment, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Vol 51, Issue 7, pages 694-702

[6] Wagner, F.A. & Anthony, J.C. (2002). From first drug use to drug dependence; developmental periods of risk for dependence upon marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol. Neuropsychopharmacology, 26, 479-488.

[7] The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. CASA white paper, Non-Medical Marijuana II: Rite Of Passage Or Russian Roulette? 2008.

[8] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), State Estimates from the 2008- 2009 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health

[9] Mieir, Madeline, H., et al (2012). Persistent Cannabis Users Show Neuropsychological Decline from Childhood to Midlife.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.  Published on line at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract.

[10] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA), 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).

[11]Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.. University of Michigan, 2011. Monitoring the Future Study

[12]  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010.

[13] Office of Traffic Safety, California, 2010. Press Release: “Drug Use Rises in California Fatal Crashes”.External link, please review our disclaimer.

==============================

The Commonwealth will be voting on Question 3 in November. If passed, Question 3 would set up an extensive system of marijuana storefronts in our state, allow people to grow marijuana in their homes and apartments, and provide a defense to those carrying hundreds of joints under the guise of medicine. This is not about the terminally ill – it is about widespread marijuana abuse.

Specifically, the law would:

Set up 35 marijuana retail stores throughout Massachusetts
This number could increase in future years. These stores would be owned and operated by anyone 21 years old or older and would sell marijuana ice cream, candy, cookies, joints, and other items. There is no requirement in the law to have a physician or licensed pharmacist on site.

Allow people to grow marijuana in their home
Your neighbor could grow marijuana plants in their backyard, on their veranda, in their window flower boxes. Your children’s friends could have marijuana growing in their home study, bathroom or garage.
Allow people to carry up to a 60-day (2 month) supply of marijuana on their person
A daily dose is undefined in the law. If a daily dose is two joints (most likely it will be more like three to five joints, or 3 marijuana infused brownies), this means a person could have as many as 120 joints (or brownies) on their person or transport this amount of marijuana in their vehicle. Large amounts of marijuana could be issued, possessed and protected under the guise of “medicine.”

Allow virtually anyone to obtain marijuana
The proposed legislation lists a few specific conditions for which marijuana can be obtained, but then opens it up to “other conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient’s physician.” This is the loophole that is promoting widespread pot use in other states that have passed this type of law – the chronically ill are not the people using existing state programs. In fact, in these programs, less than 5% of people list cancer, HIV/AIDS, or glaucoma as reasons for obtaining marijuana.

Increase Marijuana Use Among Youth
Since decriminalization passed in 2008, Massachusetts has seen a considerable rise in youth marijuana use; rates are now 30% higher than that of the nation.1 Currently, one in three teenagers use marijuana regularly in the Commonwealth. Major studies by researchers at Columbia University and elsewhere have found that states with “medical” marijuana had marijuana abuse/dependence rates almost twice as high than states without such laws.2,3

Other Massachusetts organizations who have joined in opposing Question 3.
Massachusetts Medical Society, Worcester District Medical Society, Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse, Research at Children’s Hospital – Boston, Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery, Massachusetts Prevention Alliance, Massachusetts Major City Police Chiefs Association, Massachusetts Family Institute, Healthy Outcomes Incorporated

Other associations that do NOT support the use of marijuana as medicine, include:
American Medical Association, American Society for Addiction Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The American Glaucoma Society, The American Academy of Ophthamology, The American Cancer Society

We know from other states that have passed “medical” marijuana laws, that this is a failed public health and safety experiment. Let’s not join the states that are now spending enormous resources to address the crime, addiction and exploitation that Question 3 would promote. Real compassion means real medicine determined through scientific process. Drugs should not circumvent the rigorous study, clinical trial and research process that determines what true medicine is through a public voting process. And they should be dispensed properly through our pharmaceutical system. Anything less puts our public at risk and bears unforeseen, unintended consequences that are harmful to people and the communities in which they live.

1. CDC, Youth Online, High School YRBSS, http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/Default.aspx
2. Cerda, M. et al. (in press). Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Found at http://www.columbia.edu/~dsh2/pdf/MedicalMarijuana.pdf
3. Wall, M. et al (2011). Adolescent Marijuana Use from 2002 to 2008: Higher in States with Medical Marijuana Laws, Cause Still Unclear, Annals of epidemiology, Vol 21 issue 9 Pages 714-716.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Native Plant Garden at library

Two girl scouts, Sophie Werner and Allegra Pericles, created a wonderful native plant garden in a triangular space between a walkway and the parking lot, next to the library.

Per Girl Scout leader, Katherine Steeger,  The “purpose was to establish a garden that would showcase not only native plants, but endangered, native plants.  Sophie and Allegra have created a pamphlet and three-fold display board explaining their garden.  In addition, they created a book where each plant in the garden is shown in a photograph and the details about it are presented.  They have also established a website which talks about what is happening in the garden and other information  –  website.

What a great addition to the downtown.   See it here.

Mass regs on trapping beavers

These are the state’s regulations related to when a town can allow trapping by people to remove beavers.
==========================
Code of Massachusetts Regulations

Title 321: Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Chapter 2.00: Miscellaneous Regulations Relating to Fisheries and Wildlife (Refs & Annos)

321 CMR 2.08
2.08: Use of Certain Traps for the Taking of Fur-bearing Mammals

(1) Definitions: for the purposes of 321 CMR 2.08, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:

Agriculture or Agricultural Use means farming or agriculture as defined in M.G.L. c. 111, § 1.

Cage or Box Type Trap means a trap that confines the whole animal without grasping any part of the animal.

Conibear Type Trap means “Conibear” model traps and similar body-gripping traps and devices, whether or not enclosed in or comprising part of a box, tube, or other enclosing device.

Department of Environmental Protection means the Department of Environmental Protection within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 21A, § 7.

Department of Public Health means the Department of Public Health within the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 6A, § 7G.

Director means the Director of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 21, § 7G.

Division means the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife within the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement, as provided for in M.G.L. c. 21A, § 8.

Federal Department of Public Health means the United States Public Health Service.

Fur-bearing Mammals means all mammals in the Class Mammalia, as defined in M.G.L. c. 131, § 1.

Municipal Board of Health means a board of health as defined in M.G.L. c. 111, § 1.

Municipal Conservation Commission means a conservation commission as provided for in M.G.L. c. 40, § 8C, provided that, if a town or city does not have a conservation commission, the authority thereof shall be exercised by the board of selectmen in a town or the mayor in a city.

Permissible Traps means cage or box type traps, common type mouse and rat traps, and net traps.

Prohibited Traps means all traps used for the capture of fur-bearing mammals except cage or box type traps, common type mouse and rat traps, and net traps.

Restricted Traps means conibear type traps.

(2) Use of Certain Traps Prohibited. Except as provided in M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A, and 321 CMR 2.08, a person shall not use, set, place, maintain, or possess for the purpose of capturing fur-bearing mammals, any prohibited trap in any wood, field, or waters of Massachusetts or in any other place where fur-bearing mammals may be found.

(3) Health and Safety Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(2), the Department of Public Health, the federal department of public health, or a municipal board of health may use prohibited traps for the purpose of protection from threats to human health and safety.

(4) Criteria for Determining Threats to Human Health and Safety. A threat to human health and safety may include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following situations:
(a) beaver or muskrat occupancy of a public water supply;

(b) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of drinking water wells, wellfields, or water pumping stations;

(c) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of sewage beds, septic systems, or sewage pumping stations;

(d) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of a public or private way, driveway, railway, or airport runway or taxiway;

(e) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of electrical or gas generation plants or transmission or distribution structures or facilities, telephone or other communications facilities, or other public utilities;

(f) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting the public use of hospitals, emergency clinics, nursing homes, homes for the elderly, or fire stations;

(g) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting hazardous waste sites or facilities, incineration or resource recovery plants, or other structures or facilities whereby flooding may result in the release or escape of hazardous or noxious materials or substances;

(h) the gnawing, chewing, entering, or damage to electrical or gas generating or transmission equipment, cables, alarm systems, or facilities by any beaver or muskrat;

(i) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding or structural instability on property owned by the applicant if such animal problem poses an imminent threat of substantial property damage or income loss, which shall be limited to:

1. flooding of residential, commercial, industrial or commercial buildings or facilities;

2. flooding of or access to commercial agricultural lands which prevents normal agricultural practices from being conducted on such lands;

3. reduction in the production of an agricultural crop caused by flooding or compromised structural stability of commercial agricultural lands;

4. flooding of residential lands in which the municipal board of health; its chair or agent or the state or federal department of health has determined a threat to human health and safety exists.

(5) Special Permits to Use Restricted Traps or Other Means of Relief. A person or his duly authorized agent may apply for a permit to use restricted traps or other means of relief, as follows:
(a) to the municipal board of health, in situations involving a threat to human health and safety, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(6) through (14);

(b) to the director, in situations not involving a threat to human health and safety, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(16) through (18).

(6) Emergency Permit to Use Restricted Traps, Breaching of Water Impedance Structures, or Water Flow Control Devices. An applicant or his duly authorized agent may apply to the municipal board of health for an emergency permit to immediately alleviate a threat to human health and safety pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(4), on property owned, leased, or lawfully occupied by the applicant, provided, that in the case of a tenant or lessee, such applicant shall secure the authorization of the property owner prior to making such application.

(7) Authorizations Under an Emergency Permit. Such emergency permit shall authorize the applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to immediately remedy the threat to human health and safety, by one or more of the following options, for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days:
(a) the use of restricted traps or permissible traps, subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(21);

(b) the breaching of dams, dikes, bogs or berms, so-called, subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40;

(c) the employment of any non-lethal management control devices or water flow control devices, subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40.

(8) Determination of Threat to Human Health and Safety and Issuance of Emergency Permit. The municipal board of health shall, after receipt of an application for an emergency permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(6), and after making a determination that such threat exists, and subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c), immediately issue said emergency permit for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days.

(9) Exception to Determination of Threat to Human Health and Safety. Notwithstanding the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(8), the department of environmental protection shall make any determination of a threat to a public water supply, pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(4)(a). The municipal board of health and the department of public health shall receive such determination from the department of environmental protection prior to issuing an emergency permit for such public water supply.

(10) Denial of Application for an Emergency Permit to Use Restricted Traps. If an application for such emergency permit is denied, an applicant may:
(a) appeal to the department of public health, if the denial involves a determination as to the existence of a bona-fide threat to human health and safety. If such alleged threat involves a public water supply, the department of public health shall consult with the department of environmental protection prior to rending a decision on the appeal.

(b) if the department of public health determines that a bona-fide threat to public health and safety exists, it shall render such decision to the municipal board of health, which shall, subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c), immediately issue said emergency permit for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days.

(c) appeal to the director, if the municipal board of health determines that a bona-fide threat to human health and safety exists, but the board’s denial involves a question as to whether the threat is caused by the activities of beaver or muskrat.

(d) if the director determines that such threat to human health and safety is caused by the activities of beaver or muskrat, he shall render such decision to the municipal board of health, which shall, subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c), immediately issue said emergency permit for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days.

(11) Extension of Existing Emergency Permit. In the event that a threat to human health and safety, as specified in an emergency permit issued pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(8), has not been abated or alleviated within the authorized ten day period, the applicant or his duly authorized agent, with the concurrence of the municipal board of health, shall apply to the director for an extension to such permit for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive days. If the director determines that a bona-fide threat to human health and safety exists, as advised by the municipal board of health, the department of public health, or the department of environmental protection, as the case may be, he shall immediately issue such extension permit for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days.

(12) Development of Abatement Plans. If the director determines that an extension to an emergency permit should be issued, he shall, within 30 days of such decision, develop a plan using alternative, non-lethal management techniques to address the beaver or muskrat problem which instigated the issuance of the permit. Such plan shall:
(a) be developed with the participation and assistance of the applicant or his duly authorized agent, the municipal board of health, and the municipal conservation commission as required pursuant to M.G.L. c. 131, § 40; and

(b) describe measures which may be employed to address said beaver or muskrat problem, using barriers, fencing, or other alternative non-lethal management techniques, water flow control devices, if appropriate to the situation, subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, and, if necessary, continued use of permissible traps to provide a long-term solution.

(c) The director shall, after development of such a plan, provide such reasonable technical advice, assistance, and support as shall be necessary for the applicant or his agent to implement the abatement plan.

(13) Additional Emergency Permits. Notwithstanding the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(6) through (12), an applicant or his duly authorized agent may apply to the municipal board of health for additional emergency permits, provided:
(a) the applicant states in writing that there exists on property owned, leased or lawfully occupied by him a beaver or muskrat problem which the applicant or his authorized agent has:

1. attempted to address using alternative, non-lethal management techniques or permissible traps, and the problem cannot reasonably be abated by the continued use of such alternative, non-lethal management techniques or permissible traps; or

2. the applicant has applied for and is awaiting an extension emergency permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(11).

(b) an applicant or his duly authorized agent, in the case of application for an additional emergency permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08(13)(a), shall be eligible for only two such additional emergency permits, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(14).

(14) Authorizations Under an Additional Emergency Permit. An additional emergency permit shall be authorized and valid as follows:
(a) application shall be made in the same manner as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(6), (8) and (9);

(b) the first such permit shall authorize the applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to use any or all of the measures specified in 321 CMR 2.08(7). Said additional emergency permit shall be valid for a period of ten consecutive days;

(c) if the director has not approved an extension emergency permit within the ten day period provided in 321 CMR 2.08(14)(b), the applicant or his duly authorized agent may apply for a second additional emergency permit. Such second additional emergency permit shall authorize the applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to use only those measures proved for in 321 CMR 2.08(7)(b) and (c). Such additional emergency permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed ten consecutive days, or until the date on which the director renders his decision regarding the applicant’s extension emergency permit, whichever period is shorter.

(15) Recommended Subregulatory Guidelines and Standards. For the purposes of 321 CMR 2.08(5) through (14), the director, in consultation with the departments of environmental protection and public health, may recommend guidelines and standards for permits, applications, reports, site inspections, dam or dike breaching periods, and water flow control structure installation. Such guidelines and standards may be set forth or distributed to boards of health, municipal conservation commissions, applicants or their agents, by postal mail or agency websites, or otherwise, and may include reference to published or unpublished agency documents, brochures, or handouts relevant to such activities. Such standards and guidelines may be issued jointly with the departments of environmental protection and public health. Such standards and guidelines, where not repugnant to law, shall be construed consistently with the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08 and M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A. Nothing in 321 CMR 2.08(15) shall be construed to limit the powers and authorities of the departments of environmental protection and public health.

(16) Non-emergency Special Permit to Use Restricted Traps in Situations Not Involving Threats to Human Health and Safety. The director may authorize an applicant or his duly authorized agent, as named in the permit, to use restricted traps to abate animal problems on property owned by the applicant, in accordance with 321 CMR 2.08(16) through (18).

(17) Application Procedure for Obtaining Non-emergency Special Permit to Use Restricted Traps. The applicant shall apply to the director in writing and the application shall contain the following information:
(a) name, address, and telephone number of the applicant where the applicant may be reached between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. and name of corporation or business represented by the applicant, if any;

(b) name, address, and telephone number of the property owner or lessee, if different;

(c) a statement by the applicant that there exists on property owned or leased by him, or on which the applicant intends to act as agent for the owner or lessee, a problem caused by fur-bearing mammals which cannot reasonably be abated by the use of permissible traps;

(d) a statement by the applicant that he, or the owner or lessee, has attempted to abate the problem using permissible traps and has failed to make such abatement;

(e) description of the type of damage caused by fur-bearing mammals, and the kind of mammal;

(f) street address or geographical location where the mammal damage is occurring;

(g) trap registration number of the applicant, if required pursuant to M.G.L. c. 131, § 80;

(h) the date the application was executed;

(i) the applicant’s signature, executed under the pains and penalties of perjury; and

(j) the signature of the property owner or lessee, if different, executed under the pains and penalties of perjury.

(18) Review and Approval Procedure for Obtaining Non-emergency Special Permit. When the director receives an application for a non-emergency special permit to use a restricted trap, as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(17), he shall:
(a) review the application and the type and circumstances of the mammal problem described therein and may, at his discretion, additionally cause a field inspection to be made of the situation; and shall further, if he determines that the circumstances warrant issuance of such permit,

(b) cause the applicant to demonstrate that he has used permissible traps for a period of at least 15 consecutive days, and that usage of such traps has failed to abate the mammal problem, and a signed statement by the applicant, signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, shall be accepted by the director as sufficient evidence of such permissible trap usage; and shall further, if he determines that the circumstances warrant issuance of such permit,

(c) cause the applicant to demonstrate that he has attempted to resolve the mammal problem with alternative, non-lethal management techniques, including, where appropriate, flow devices, exclosures, barriers, or harassment, and that usage of such alternative, non-lethal techniques has failed to abate the problem, and a signed statement by the applicant, signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, shall be accepted by the director as sufficient evidence of such usage of alternative, non-lethal techniques; and

(d) when the applicant has complied with 321 CMR 2.08(18)(a) through (c), to the satisfaction of the director, the director may authorize in writing the use, setting, placing, tending, and maintenance of restricted traps, of such number and type as he shall determine, and subject to the provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(21), for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive days at the address or location specified in the application by the named applicant.

(e) At the conclusion of the 30 day period, the applicant shall make a report in writing to the director, and shall state the number of days and/or trap-nights during which restricted traps were used, the success or failure of trap usage, and the number and kind of fur-bearing mammals trapped, if any, their disposition, and any other information as shall have been required by the director in the permit.

(f) If the applicant was unsuccessful in abating the mammal problem in accordance with such non-emergency special permit, the applicant may reapply and shall again comply with provisions of 321 CMR 2.08(18)(a) through (c).

(19) Procedure for Reviewing Complaints of Damage by Fur-bearing Mammals. If a report is received by the division of damage by or problems with beaver, muskrat, or other fur-bearing mammals:
(a) the circumstances of the complaint shall ascertained; and

(b) if the complaint or problem is alleged to pose a threat to human health and safety as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(4), the complainant shall be referred to the municipal board of health in the city or town in which the problem occurs, or, if on federal property, to the federal department of public health; or

(c) if the complaint or problem is alleged not to pose a threat to human health and safety, as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(4), the division may record the complaint data and may thereafter provide technical information, conduct a site visit, issue a dam breaching permit pursuant to 321 CMR 2.02(6) subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, refer the complainant to a licensed hunter or trapper for harvest using firearms or permissible traps during the lawful open season, refer the complainant to a licensed problem animal control agent for taking with firearms or permissible traps, issue a permit to the applicant or a duly authorized agent to control the animal out of season using firearms, advise the complainant of the process for obtaining a non-emergency special permit to use restricted traps as provided for in 321 CMR 2.08(17) and (18), or take such other actions or provide such advice as is deemed appropriate to the situation.

(20) Denial of Non-emergency Special Permit to Use Restricted Traps. Where not repugnant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 30A, the procedure for appealing the denial of a non-emergency special permit to use restricted traps shall be as provided in 321 CMR 2.02(11).

(21) Use of Traps and Firearms. Traps and firearms may be used, set, placed, maintained, tended, or possessed for the capture of fur-bearing mammals in accordance with M.G.L. c. 131, §§ 4, 5, and 37, and 321 CMR 2.14 and 321 CMR 3.02(5), provided that a person lawfully using traps pursuant to permits issued under provisions of 321 CMR 2.08 shall:
(a) register all traps used, placed, set, maintained, possessed or tended on land of another, in accordance with provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 80.

(b) use restricted traps with a jaw spread not less than four inches and not greater than seven inches, provided such traps are used only when completely submerged in water or when set inside a dwelling or other building with the permission of the owner or occupant thereof. When set inside a building, such traps must have two functioning springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, restricted traps with a maximum jaw spread not greater than ten inches may be used for the trapping of beaver only, provided that such traps are used only when completely submerged in water.

(c) use permissible traps only when in conformance with the provisions of 321 CMR 2.14(24) and 321 CMR 3.02(5)(c), unless otherwise allowed by law.

(d) for the purposes of 321 CMR 2.08, determine the jaw spread of a trap by measuring midway across the open jaws at right angles to the hinges between the extreme outside edges; and all persons subject to M.G.L. c. 131 shall

(e) use firearms only when in conformance with the provisions of 321 CMR 2.14(24)(f) and 321 CMR 3.00, and M.G.L. c. 140, unless otherwise allowed by law.

(22) Use of Certain Alternative Management Techniques. Notwithstanding the provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A and 321 CMR 2.08, a person not wishing to obtain an emergency permit or non-emergency special permit to use restricted traps pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08 shall not otherwise be required to obtain a permit to use certain alternative, non-lethal management techniques for the abatement or alleviation of problems caused by fur-bearing mammals, including, but not restricted to, barriers, exclosures, repellents registered and applied consistent with provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 43, and c. 132B, harassment, and similar techniques not otherwise repugnant to law, and subject to the determinations and conditions of municipal conservation commissions pursuant to provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, and the determinations and conditions of the division pursuant to 321 CMR 2.02(6).

(23) Agents. Licensed trappers, including licensed problem animal control agents, may act as agent for an applicant pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08, provided that such agent shall comply with the trapper training provisions of 321 CMR 2.14(24)(b) and (26), and 321 CMR 3.02(5)(c) and (f), and such other provisions of 321 CMR as shall be applicable.

(24) Incidental Capture. Any person taking a fur-bearing mammal or any other vertebrate animal under provisions of a permit issued pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08 shall, if the animal is killed in the trap, surrender the entire carcass of such animal within 48 hours to the Division, provided that if the animal is a beaver or a muskrat, or such other fur-bearing mammal as shall be specifically named in the permit as causing a threat to human health and safety, the permittee may retain the animal subject to relevant provisions of 321 CMR and M.G.L. c. 131. If an animal other than a beaver, a muskrat, or other fur-bearing mammal as shall be specifically named in the permit is taken alive in a trap, such animal shall immediately be released at the site of capture.

(25) Validity of Permits. Except where a shorter time period is specified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 80A and 321 CMR 2.08, all permits issued pursuant to 321 CMR 2.08 shall be issued and may be reapplied for consistent with provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, § 32.

Current through August 31, 2012, Register #1216

Robert E. Naughton Civic Square dedication on 9/29/12

The dedication of the new Robert E. Naughton Civic Square will be at 11:00 AM on September 29, 2012 at the intersection of Causeway Street and Claypit Road, followed by a reception at The Center.   The invitation is attached.

Beaver dam at Causeway St. bridge

Mike Sullivan reported yesterday that “I went down with Ken Feeney on Wednesday and it looks like the beavers have started to build a dam in the Causeway bridge culverts. Ken will have the DPW guys clean it out.”

Like MFi on FB

Help the Medfield Foundation by liking it on Facebook

DCAM letter to BoS

Letter to Medfield Selectmen from DCAM Commissioner Carole Cornelison, received today –

=================
August 31, 2012

Ann B. Thompson, Chair, Medfield Board of Selectmen
Mark L. Fisher, Member, Medfield Board of Selectmen
Osler L. Peterson, Member Medfield Board of Selectmen
Medfield Town House
459 Main Street
Medfield, MA 02052
Dear Chair Thompson, Selectmen Fisher and Peterson,

I do apologize for the delay in responding to you; however please know that I was delighted to learn from your letter that you have appointed a Committee of local residents to formally join us in our collaborative process of taking a fresh look at the former Medfield State Hospital property. Reuse land planning is a creative dynamic process; we welcome your ideas, those of the new Committee and the Medfield residents at large.

Although I agree that overall the due diligence information you requested in your letter is reasonable and necessary for a potential buyer, the timing of that data gathering is likewise critical. At this time, DCAM continues to work diligently with the Executive Office for Finance and Administration to finalize the Municipal-Commonwealth Sale Partnership Model that would enable the Town of Medfield to purchase the property. We anticipate the final approvals by the end of September at which time we can begin our discussions with you. During these discussions we will be able to respond to your questions regarding the sunk costs and sales terms you referenced in your letter.
(item # 3 and 4)

I believe the outcome of our Sale Partnership Model discussions will, in part, drive the schedule and other decisions necessary to undertake the due diligence work of updating the building surveys you requested (item # I).

With respect to your request for a copy of the Comprehensive Reuse Study referenced in the Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) report (“Medfield State Hospital Market Analysis DRAFT dated April 20, 2012), I want to clearly assure you that DCAM has not undertaken a new reuse study as I believe this is ajoint collaborative project with you. The intent of referencing a reuse study in the JLL report was to indicate that the market analysis is the foundational report for the eventual task of commissioning a market driven comprehensive reuse study. Again, the outcome of our Sales Partnership Model deliberations with you will inform decisions regarding a comprehensive reuse study.

I remain encouraged that through these open lines of communication we will return this property to productive reuse in a manner that is highly satisfactory to the Town of Medfield and the Commonwealth.

As always, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Carole Cornelison
Commissioner