Wednesday January 6
Absentee ballots for both Feb. 1st and Feb. 5th recall elections in Paris should be available.
Thursday January 7
At 7 PM an open town meeting is scheduled for Paris Voters, Paris Elementary School on High Street.
Jan. 6. Despite gloom, doom, threats and diversions, there are 2 separate recall elections scheduled for the first week in February. The law states that 30 days before a referendum election, ballots must be available for those who wish to vote by absentee ballot. (See this site: "Why come out twice? Vote once" and "Has anyone called?")
Paris voters - who are becoming more and more convinced that every single vote makes a difference - can take advantage of the option to vote by absentee ballot, and make just one trip to the polling place and cast 4 individual votes yay or nay.
Jan. 7. Giving voters very short notice, selectmen have very hastily pulled together and scheduled an open town meeting which includes, as of this posting, the following articles for vote:
(1) A petitioned proposal for a replacement recall ordinance, submitted 12-28-09, to repeal the Nov. 3rd ordinance approved by voters 1556 to 537. The replacement ordinance is designed to cancel any recall efforts to date;
(2) Borrowing money to undergo a town wide revaluation, with the intent to do the revaluation this winter;
(3) Transfer of funds to pay for a water tank replacement for the fire department's tanker truck;
(4) Transfer of funds to support a grant request sought by Snow Hoppers Snowmobile Club of S. Paris to repair/replace a snowmobile bridge.
The articles can get rearranged to be voted on in any order. It's important to stay until the meeting is adjourned, because any earlier vote can be reconsidered at any time.
Asking the voters to come out at night, in the middle of the winter, for a couple of hours, does not seem the best way to give all Paris voters the chance to make their wishes known.
It seems, rather, a way to control the number of people who would - or can - come. We must take this as an opportunity, however, and get as many voters out as possible.
All the voters, not just a chosen few, are, and must be, the bottom line deciders for how things are run in this town. Elected officials are answerable to all the voters.
The voters in this town must be wise enough to see through the gloom, doom, threats and diversions.
The focus in this town must be on what makes it strong - the people. All of us.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Beyond All Imagination
The December 28th Paris Selectmen's meeting was spectacular. Really beyond all imagination. Designed to shock and awe.
They thought.
*Paris has a new town manager. With a rock solid contract.
*Some pay warrants - well, not too sure about them, but some got paid... and others were going to be checked on to see what was in them....lawyer fees and all....maybe? Or not.
*A new item magically appeared on the agenda just today. Tricky, huh? Guess when a couple of Paris voters asked back a few weeks ago to get on the agenda - and didn't because "they missed the deadline" - were plain old unlucky. Or ...
The magically appearing item was a brand new proposed recall ordinance. Shiny new. Well, actually, it did have to be removed from the office to be "tweaked" a few days back, it was said. So, almost shiny new. Guess the 1556 "for" and 537 "against" (43 no vote) recall ordinance vote on November 3, 2009 didn't suit.
*Next, a very quick - and really soon - Open Town Meeting plan; coming up January 7. All the items you ever wanted to have on a warrant and then some - especially if you were thinking that your term of office might be shortened in the near future and you had places to go and promises to keep.
*And a new interim town clerk appointed. How utterly normal.
Explanations were not so plentiful, or responses to questions; and toward the end, it was pretty fuzzy whether the meeting was over - or whether there were quiet negotiations going on while the audience chatted (thinking, obviously, that since they had heard"adjournment" called for and the next thing that happened was conversation in the audience, that it probably was adjournment. But it wasn't at all; because a couple of people up close to the table discovered all sorts of things were being discussed. Surprise!)
Selectman Herrick tried valiantly to wade through the molasses and sort out situation after situation - and perhaps he did; but, from the audience, no one could tell.
Some smug faces in the audience, a sneer or two. Some very quiet. Some angry.
But nobody in the room was even remotely shocked. And there was no room at all for awe. Of any kind.
Really, call NPC-TV, 743-7859, and find when the video of this meeting can be viewed. Or order one for yourself. You have to see this to believe it.
They thought.
*Paris has a new town manager. With a rock solid contract.
*Some pay warrants - well, not too sure about them, but some got paid... and others were going to be checked on to see what was in them....lawyer fees and all....maybe? Or not.
*A new item magically appeared on the agenda just today. Tricky, huh? Guess when a couple of Paris voters asked back a few weeks ago to get on the agenda - and didn't because "they missed the deadline" - were plain old unlucky. Or ...
The magically appearing item was a brand new proposed recall ordinance. Shiny new. Well, actually, it did have to be removed from the office to be "tweaked" a few days back, it was said. So, almost shiny new. Guess the 1556 "for" and 537 "against" (43 no vote) recall ordinance vote on November 3, 2009 didn't suit.
*Next, a very quick - and really soon - Open Town Meeting plan; coming up January 7. All the items you ever wanted to have on a warrant and then some - especially if you were thinking that your term of office might be shortened in the near future and you had places to go and promises to keep.
*And a new interim town clerk appointed. How utterly normal.
Explanations were not so plentiful, or responses to questions; and toward the end, it was pretty fuzzy whether the meeting was over - or whether there were quiet negotiations going on while the audience chatted (thinking, obviously, that since they had heard"adjournment" called for and the next thing that happened was conversation in the audience, that it probably was adjournment. But it wasn't at all; because a couple of people up close to the table discovered all sorts of things were being discussed. Surprise!)
Selectman Herrick tried valiantly to wade through the molasses and sort out situation after situation - and perhaps he did; but, from the audience, no one could tell.
Some smug faces in the audience, a sneer or two. Some very quiet. Some angry.
But nobody in the room was even remotely shocked. And there was no room at all for awe. Of any kind.
Really, call NPC-TV, 743-7859, and find when the video of this meeting can be viewed. Or order one for yourself. You have to see this to believe it.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Any Questions?
On Monday December 28 Paris Selectmen meet at 7 pm at the fire station. The agenda promises a full schedule of critical items.
Items 4 and 11 relate to one of the critical items - the appointment of Philip Tarr as Town Manager. As does item #3, the executive session to discuss the contract. There seems to be no looking at the possibility of a second interim manager until the legal issues with former Town Mgr. Jackson are clearer; no concern about possible court costs and legal outcomes - outcomes that are indeed going to come.
A full time manager. Listen carefully tomorrow night as the contract is explained fully. What? No explanation forthcoming? Guess they had a reason for Citizen Comments being well down the page, #7. It's too bad nobody will be able to ask about iron clad contracts, and what they cost. Or ask about what happens "if"....
Do they think it doesn't matter who picks up the tab? And while we're at it - considering questions we aren't supposed to ask - who put this tab together, anyway?
Item # 10 indicates a Special Town Meeting sometime in January. The fire department's water tanker is definitely a real need; but what about the rush job revaluation? with money not yet avavailable? Revaluation must be looked at and thoroughly discussed, yes.
But, exactly who would benefit from this revaluation if it is done right away in the middle of winter? Finished before April? Is the aim to get a thorough and well done job for the whole town of Paris, or is the rush to fullfill a campaign promise to somebody?
If the current majority of a board suspected they might not be the majority as long as they planned, and wanted to insure there was no way for successors to get around the priorities they had already set in motion...
...how might that look?
If any part of those priorities was not in the best interest of the whole town, what sort of agenda would that be? Who would ever do such a thing?
Items 4 and 11 relate to one of the critical items - the appointment of Philip Tarr as Town Manager. As does item #3, the executive session to discuss the contract. There seems to be no looking at the possibility of a second interim manager until the legal issues with former Town Mgr. Jackson are clearer; no concern about possible court costs and legal outcomes - outcomes that are indeed going to come.
A full time manager. Listen carefully tomorrow night as the contract is explained fully. What? No explanation forthcoming? Guess they had a reason for Citizen Comments being well down the page, #7. It's too bad nobody will be able to ask about iron clad contracts, and what they cost. Or ask about what happens "if"....
Do they think it doesn't matter who picks up the tab? And while we're at it - considering questions we aren't supposed to ask - who put this tab together, anyway?
Item # 10 indicates a Special Town Meeting sometime in January. The fire department's water tanker is definitely a real need; but what about the rush job revaluation? with money not yet avavailable? Revaluation must be looked at and thoroughly discussed, yes.
But, exactly who would benefit from this revaluation if it is done right away in the middle of winter? Finished before April? Is the aim to get a thorough and well done job for the whole town of Paris, or is the rush to fullfill a campaign promise to somebody?
If the current majority of a board suspected they might not be the majority as long as they planned, and wanted to insure there was no way for successors to get around the priorities they had already set in motion...
...how might that look?
If any part of those priorities was not in the best interest of the whole town, what sort of agenda would that be? Who would ever do such a thing?
Why come out Twice? Vote Once
Instead of saving Paris voters from having to come out more than once to get one recall election taken care of, 2 elections have been set: cost in the many hundreds of dollars, inconvenience for all. Maybe to make people mad? Make them forget to come out at all?
(Forget? Really? What town are they looking at?)
But Paris voters truly do have another option. (on this site 12-23-09) Absentee ballot voting is available for all registered voters. By law referendum ballot elections have to have ballots available 30 days prior to an election date, and that includes a recall election. 21-A MRSA §752. Two recall elections, Monday Feb. 1, the other Friday Feb. 5. If voters go to the town office January 6 (better call first to be sure) ballots for both recall elections should be available.
The ballot design is prescribed by law 21-A MRSA §601. It must state, in some form, that each candidate for recall is voted on separately, yes or no, no matter whether on one ballot, or 2 individual ballots. Note: it is not a matter of choosing one candidate for recall over the other candidate. Each individual candidate for recall must receive a yes or no vote.
Call the Paris Town Office to see when all ballots will be ready for both recall elections. Then you can go and vote early on all 4 candidates at one time.
(Forget? Really? What town are they looking at?)
But Paris voters truly do have another option. (on this site 12-23-09) Absentee ballot voting is available for all registered voters. By law referendum ballot elections have to have ballots available 30 days prior to an election date, and that includes a recall election. 21-A MRSA §752. Two recall elections, Monday Feb. 1, the other Friday Feb. 5. If voters go to the town office January 6 (better call first to be sure) ballots for both recall elections should be available.
The ballot design is prescribed by law 21-A MRSA §601. It must state, in some form, that each candidate for recall is voted on separately, yes or no, no matter whether on one ballot, or 2 individual ballots. Note: it is not a matter of choosing one candidate for recall over the other candidate. Each individual candidate for recall must receive a yes or no vote.
Call the Paris Town Office to see when all ballots will be ready for both recall elections. Then you can go and vote early on all 4 candidates at one time.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Has anyone called?
Has anyone called the town office (743-2501) to see when absentee ballots for the upcoming recall election(s) in Paris will be available?
By law, absentee ballots are to be ready 30 days before the corresponding referendum ballot election. (A recall election is simply an election with a different purpose - to see if voters want to: remove someone from office, as opposed to put someone into office. The same laws apply.)
A recall election on February 1st should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 4th, or so; a recall election on February 5th should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 6th , or so.
Absentee ballots are available to registered voters who:
(1) wish to vote before the polling day, in the town office, in the presence of the town clerk;
or
(2) wish to vote but know they cannot get to the polls because of health reasons and need someone to bring them a ballot and return it to the town clerk for them;
or
(3) wish to vote but know they will be out of town on the polling day;
or
(4) simply wish to take the ballot home to study before returning it to the town clerk with the voting choice(s) marked.
There are specific legal steps for absentee ballot voting, as well as for the way those votes are counted. There is also a legal process for how voters can check on the recording of such votes. Call and ask the Town Clerk how - and when - you can vote by absentee ballot in the Town of Paris.
By law, absentee ballots are to be ready 30 days before the corresponding referendum ballot election. (A recall election is simply an election with a different purpose - to see if voters want to: remove someone from office, as opposed to put someone into office. The same laws apply.)
A recall election on February 1st should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 4th, or so; a recall election on February 5th should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 6th , or so.
Absentee ballots are available to registered voters who:
(1) wish to vote before the polling day, in the town office, in the presence of the town clerk;
or
(2) wish to vote but know they cannot get to the polls because of health reasons and need someone to bring them a ballot and return it to the town clerk for them;
or
(3) wish to vote but know they will be out of town on the polling day;
or
(4) simply wish to take the ballot home to study before returning it to the town clerk with the voting choice(s) marked.
There are specific legal steps for absentee ballot voting, as well as for the way those votes are counted. There is also a legal process for how voters can check on the recording of such votes. Call and ask the Town Clerk how - and when - you can vote by absentee ballot in the Town of Paris.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Finally, a recall election in Paris...
...actually two of them. The selectmen have scheduled the following:
Monday, February 1, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman David Ivey and Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick
Friday, February 5, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman Troy Ripley and Selectman Ray Glover
A secret ballot referendum means that the polls will be open all day on these dates, and that absentee ballots will be available for both of these recall elections. The law prescribes the dates that absentee ballots must be available. The place for each election has not been made public as of this posting. The Paris Town Office, 743-2501, can provide the information for availability of absentee ballots and location of the elections.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman David Ivey and Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick
Friday, February 5, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman Troy Ripley and Selectman Ray Glover
A secret ballot referendum means that the polls will be open all day on these dates, and that absentee ballots will be available for both of these recall elections. The law prescribes the dates that absentee ballots must be available. The place for each election has not been made public as of this posting. The Paris Town Office, 743-2501, can provide the information for availability of absentee ballots and location of the elections.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Third meeting in ten days...
Friday 12-18-09 at 5pm, Paris Town Office. You guessed it - a selectmen's meeting. Agenda does not mention the word, but "emergency" meeting has been mentioned.
What possible emergency could be happening in this town? Perhaps a fire burned out a household and family? Perhaps another individual has been laid off, and everything he/she owned has been repossessed? Perhaps there has been a death as a result of an act of violence?
Or, perhaps, a certain few who had in mind to "take back our town and run it the way we want," [quote of an individual on a special committee appointed to assist Paris' Planing Board in the early spring of 2007] are frantically trying to grab the dregs of what they thought their limitless power was forever going to be.
Regardless, the citizens are not intended to know. Anything to be discussed will be in executive session. Imagine that...
Who is kidding whom?
What possible emergency could be happening in this town? Perhaps a fire burned out a household and family? Perhaps another individual has been laid off, and everything he/she owned has been repossessed? Perhaps there has been a death as a result of an act of violence?
Or, perhaps, a certain few who had in mind to "take back our town and run it the way we want," [quote of an individual on a special committee appointed to assist Paris' Planing Board in the early spring of 2007] are frantically trying to grab the dregs of what they thought their limitless power was forever going to be.
Regardless, the citizens are not intended to know. Anything to be discussed will be in executive session. Imagine that...
Who is kidding whom?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Does the law matter?
Living in a society - as opposed to a huge string of hermit cottages running along a mountainside - requires some means for the ordering of things: the law of the jungle, perhaps, or a dictatorship; or some form of democracy.
The town of Paris falls under the description of a democracy.
Consider the following excerpts from two of our elected officials at Monday's selectmen's meeting:
*Context: One official had signed petitions to oust 2 fellow selectmen, and was preparing to vote as a board member on sending those recall questions on to the voters.
[editor's note: Documents provided all 5 selectmen in this instance included (a) copy of one page from each of 2 separate petitions to recall 2 selectmen, Official #1's signature on each page; (b) copy of voter registration list showing only one voter in Paris with that name; (c) copy of MMA directive; (d) copy of Paris Selectmen Bylaws.]
Official #1 - "Can I speak? I signed it right out in public. I didn't care who knows about it."
Could a translation be: "It doesn't matter if I break the rules - or a law - if I'm up front about it"?
*Context: Continuing the example above, a citizen has asked Official #2 if he has reviewed the documented material submitted (by the citizen).
Official #2 - "See, this is the same logic you're trying to use, (Citizen): circular. The answer is (Official #1)'s signature didn't remove anybody."
(Citizen agrees.)
Official #2 - "So if (Official #1)'s vote was the deciding vote to remove somebody or to appoint somebody..."
(Citizen interrupts) "He can't even take part in the discussion if there's bias. So how can he vote on something? He shouldn't even take part in the discussion if there's bias shown."
Could a translation of Official #2's statements be: "I can twist your words, and I can shape the law into what I need for the moment"?
Maine statutes and local laws provide our structure; they advise, direct, and apply to all of us. Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will or won't abide by.
The town of Paris falls under the description of a democracy.
Consider the following excerpts from two of our elected officials at Monday's selectmen's meeting:
*Context: One official had signed petitions to oust 2 fellow selectmen, and was preparing to vote as a board member on sending those recall questions on to the voters.
[editor's note: Documents provided all 5 selectmen in this instance included (a) copy of one page from each of 2 separate petitions to recall 2 selectmen, Official #1's signature on each page; (b) copy of voter registration list showing only one voter in Paris with that name; (c) copy of MMA directive; (d) copy of Paris Selectmen Bylaws.]
Official #1 - "Can I speak? I signed it right out in public. I didn't care who knows about it."
Could a translation be: "It doesn't matter if I break the rules - or a law - if I'm up front about it"?
*Context: Continuing the example above, a citizen has asked Official #2 if he has reviewed the documented material submitted (by the citizen).
Official #2 - "See, this is the same logic you're trying to use, (Citizen): circular. The answer is (Official #1)'s signature didn't remove anybody."
(Citizen agrees.)
Official #2 - "So if (Official #1)'s vote was the deciding vote to remove somebody or to appoint somebody..."
(Citizen interrupts) "He can't even take part in the discussion if there's bias. So how can he vote on something? He shouldn't even take part in the discussion if there's bias shown."
Could a translation of Official #2's statements be: "I can twist your words, and I can shape the law into what I need for the moment"?
Maine statutes and local laws provide our structure; they advise, direct, and apply to all of us. Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will or won't abide by.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Direction or disarray?
Hard to find enough facts to capture from the 12-14-09 selectmen's meeting. Six months of this "different direction." Direction?
We had some non votes; several non decisions; a fair amount of unfinished, table-until-the-next-meeting topics.
Was this disarray? Is there a plan, but we're missing it?
We had a chairman, who, if wanting to make some little point, had to physically lean out past the vice chair - who, himself, wanted to make many major points - and whose back was squarely in the face of the chairman most of time.
We had a vice chair who, in the effort to make some of his points, presented vague time lines, incomplete information, and un-researched financial forecasts to well placed questions from another selectman who had actually read the material all 5 selectmen had in front of them.
Tonight, as so often during the last 6 months, there seemed to be laws, if not favorable to the 3-2 split majority, that were "only one opinion." Rules and ethical questions were ok to ignore if the person "did it [the violation] out in the open...didn't try to hide it."
A certain selectman's signature created an ethical question re. his ability to vote on a particular issue, thus creating a dilemma for the 3-2 split majority's agenda. One well prepared citizen from the floor brought documents and a well-reasoned argument; a second well-prepared statement followed from an individual who has somehow managed to escape the rampage of the Ivey Termination and Expulsion decree; both citizens firmly addressed the situation that had the board headed toward ethical derailment.
At that point there was an almost imperceptible change in the atmosphere. The focus on agenda driven items seemed to waver.
Postures stiffened; tight jaws, flushed faces, quickened speech began to appear at the front table for some. Sentences became even more circular than before, and in one or two places there was the suggestion of a stammer. Were some folks flustered?
Was this disarray? If there can't be bending of laws and successful bullying and prepackaged decisions, are things coming unraveled? Can an agenda driven largely by anger and vindictiveness survive?
Disarray - things out of alignment; disjointed approach; crooked lines of thought or logic; a fumbling for words or reasoning?
So, tonight, did we see a different direction? or disarray?
We had some non votes; several non decisions; a fair amount of unfinished, table-until-the-next-meeting topics.
Was this disarray? Is there a plan, but we're missing it?
We had a chairman, who, if wanting to make some little point, had to physically lean out past the vice chair - who, himself, wanted to make many major points - and whose back was squarely in the face of the chairman most of time.
We had a vice chair who, in the effort to make some of his points, presented vague time lines, incomplete information, and un-researched financial forecasts to well placed questions from another selectman who had actually read the material all 5 selectmen had in front of them.
Tonight, as so often during the last 6 months, there seemed to be laws, if not favorable to the 3-2 split majority, that were "only one opinion." Rules and ethical questions were ok to ignore if the person "did it [the violation] out in the open...didn't try to hide it."
A certain selectman's signature created an ethical question re. his ability to vote on a particular issue, thus creating a dilemma for the 3-2 split majority's agenda. One well prepared citizen from the floor brought documents and a well-reasoned argument; a second well-prepared statement followed from an individual who has somehow managed to escape the rampage of the Ivey Termination and Expulsion decree; both citizens firmly addressed the situation that had the board headed toward ethical derailment.
At that point there was an almost imperceptible change in the atmosphere. The focus on agenda driven items seemed to waver.
Postures stiffened; tight jaws, flushed faces, quickened speech began to appear at the front table for some. Sentences became even more circular than before, and in one or two places there was the suggestion of a stammer. Were some folks flustered?
Was this disarray? If there can't be bending of laws and successful bullying and prepackaged decisions, are things coming unraveled? Can an agenda driven largely by anger and vindictiveness survive?
Disarray - things out of alignment; disjointed approach; crooked lines of thought or logic; a fumbling for words or reasoning?
So, tonight, did we see a different direction? or disarray?
Friday, December 11, 2009
And The Next Meeting...
...for Paris Selectmen to continue with meaty subjects is:
Monday Dec. 14, 7PM at the Paris Fire Station. See agenda.
Item #6 Action on Settlement Offer in Law Suit
But wait - wasn't that already discussed in a recent newspaper article? Didn't say where information from plaintiff's lawyer was obtained. Alas. Front table was pretty empty for 30 minutes or more during executive session. Could anyone from that table have left a document in convenient view (from the opening of the meeting up until selectmen returned from the executive session, and later) in just the right spot for a quick photo op? Just behind the gentleman's name sign?
Item #9 Special Town Meeting
The wording indicates a plan has been made - and simply awaits the implementing. Why have an open discussion with hard questions about issues that would require some investigation into: what is accurate, what is in the best interest of the whole town, what are options, what are real costs? Why look for unbiased answers? Why not just schedule a meeting and invite friends who will vote for an agenda set by some who are in a real hurry to get something done...before... what? [Divert & Manipulate 12-1-09]
Item #12 Town Mgr. Contract
What surprises await the citizenry here? Have the drafters of this contract-to-be-discussed carelessly dismissed the possibility of the town having to pay unknown amounts in a law suit where there are still questions about the status of the previous manager? How can these drafters think they know the future? How can they think they are so infallible that they do not have to consider the possibility of having to pay these unknown amounts?
Or are they just so angry that they do not care?
And who pays for their game?
One wonders how a vendetta against a former manager comes together: is one of the steps to bring in a different manager, to...what? Make the town better? Make the administration more manageable? Make special agendas more feasible? So many choices....
So, has a contract already been written up? What about the terms of this contract-to-be-discussed? Will there be a probationary period? A vendetta, (a decision made in spite) would suggest not; an immovable object would be necessary.
In a vendetta, who bears the responsibility if the plans go awry?
This is not a third world village. The citizens in this town are willing and able to ask questions, and will not be satisfied with half answers, non-answers, or lies.
Plan to come Monday. The above items are but a few of the meaty subjects.
Monday Dec. 14, 7PM at the Paris Fire Station. See agenda.
Item #6 Action on Settlement Offer in Law Suit
But wait - wasn't that already discussed in a recent newspaper article? Didn't say where information from plaintiff's lawyer was obtained. Alas. Front table was pretty empty for 30 minutes or more during executive session. Could anyone from that table have left a document in convenient view (from the opening of the meeting up until selectmen returned from the executive session, and later) in just the right spot for a quick photo op? Just behind the gentleman's name sign?
Item #9 Special Town Meeting
The wording indicates a plan has been made - and simply awaits the implementing. Why have an open discussion with hard questions about issues that would require some investigation into: what is accurate, what is in the best interest of the whole town, what are options, what are real costs? Why look for unbiased answers? Why not just schedule a meeting and invite friends who will vote for an agenda set by some who are in a real hurry to get something done...before... what? [Divert & Manipulate 12-1-09]
Item #12 Town Mgr. Contract
What surprises await the citizenry here? Have the drafters of this contract-to-be-discussed carelessly dismissed the possibility of the town having to pay unknown amounts in a law suit where there are still questions about the status of the previous manager? How can these drafters think they know the future? How can they think they are so infallible that they do not have to consider the possibility of having to pay these unknown amounts?
Or are they just so angry that they do not care?
And who pays for their game?
One wonders how a vendetta against a former manager comes together: is one of the steps to bring in a different manager, to...what? Make the town better? Make the administration more manageable? Make special agendas more feasible? So many choices....
So, has a contract already been written up? What about the terms of this contract-to-be-discussed? Will there be a probationary period? A vendetta, (a decision made in spite) would suggest not; an immovable object would be necessary.
In a vendetta, who bears the responsibility if the plans go awry?
This is not a third world village. The citizens in this town are willing and able to ask questions, and will not be satisfied with half answers, non-answers, or lies.
Plan to come Monday. The above items are but a few of the meaty subjects.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Worth a thousand words...
That old saying about what pictures are worth.... And now DVDs are trumping that.
Monday's Selectmen's meeting was digitally recorded, as are all Paris selectmen's meetings, by and for NPC-TV. The recording offers believe-it-or-not-drama for your viewing pleasure. Camera work is well done, catching fiddly fingers, exchanged glances, body language , facial expressions, tone of voice....
Harder to keep lies and trickery going when people can see and hear for themselves what's happened, rather than trying to figure things out only by reading about them in newspapers or on-line commentaries.
If one is interested, DVDs can be purchased from the NPC-TV office in Norway; but there are public viewings for those with cable hookup. Our understanding for the viewing schedule, cable channel 11: Tuesdays (at 4 pm) and Sunday (at 6:30 pm). If there is a change, or if an additional viewing might be offered, The Paris Reporter will follow up.
Monday's Selectmen's meeting was digitally recorded, as are all Paris selectmen's meetings, by and for NPC-TV. The recording offers believe-it-or-not-drama for your viewing pleasure. Camera work is well done, catching fiddly fingers, exchanged glances, body language , facial expressions, tone of voice....
Harder to keep lies and trickery going when people can see and hear for themselves what's happened, rather than trying to figure things out only by reading about them in newspapers or on-line commentaries.
If one is interested, DVDs can be purchased from the NPC-TV office in Norway; but there are public viewings for those with cable hookup. Our understanding for the viewing schedule, cable channel 11: Tuesdays (at 4 pm) and Sunday (at 6:30 pm). If there is a change, or if an additional viewing might be offered, The Paris Reporter will follow up.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Notice: Location changed
Selectmen's meeting 12-07 has been moved to the Fire Station. No change in time - it's still 5:00pm.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Monday at 5
There won't be much room at the Paris Town Office for this special selectmen's meeting 12-07. Thus the 5pm time? Who would be bothered? Nothing going on the citizenry might care about.
Just the deadline for setting the date for a recall election for 2 selectmen. Or maybe 4?
Just a discussion about pending litigation; agenda doesn't even mention which litigation. And no citizen in Paris could possibly guess....
No mention whether Town Attorney Hole will appear. No one's telling. Maybe certain selectmen are concerned with $$ left in the amount budgeted for legal expenses. It could certainly be a savings if there could be a short cut, say, don't ask him anything; self diagnose and prescribe.
Or, perhaps ask him something; but only a very small audience (of one?...maybe two?...) gets the response, and translates it for everyone else, and takes out the part that says I advise, or I don't advise.
Or, perhaps, neglect to ask him to drive up from his Portland office to answer all those tiresome questions from the rest of the selectmen who have only had the opportunity to talk with him once [9-14-09, at Paris Elementary] since this whole law suit arrived on Paris' doorstep.
That would save not only money, but time, because critical questions for the Town of Paris still need to be answered at this juncture; if there is no lawyer in person to respond accurately, those questions can just be conveniently avoided...and forgotten....
Wonder if there's been written communication from Atty. Hole.... Interesting that the only references to and about Atty. Hole have come from Mr. Ivey, and maybe once from Mr.Ripley. Could Mr. Ivey, or Mr. Ripley, or perhaps Int. Mgr. Thorne, have forgotten to share anything with the rest of the board?
Perhaps Atty. Hole will be in attendance after all?
Oh, and are there any other tricky little items that couldn't be bothered getting themselves on the agenda...?
Come if you can. Probably camp out in the parking lot. Pretty small meeting room. Dress warm.
Just the deadline for setting the date for a recall election for 2 selectmen. Or maybe 4?
Just a discussion about pending litigation; agenda doesn't even mention which litigation. And no citizen in Paris could possibly guess....
No mention whether Town Attorney Hole will appear. No one's telling. Maybe certain selectmen are concerned with $$ left in the amount budgeted for legal expenses. It could certainly be a savings if there could be a short cut, say, don't ask him anything; self diagnose and prescribe.
Or, perhaps ask him something; but only a very small audience (of one?...maybe two?...) gets the response, and translates it for everyone else, and takes out the part that says I advise, or I don't advise.
Or, perhaps, neglect to ask him to drive up from his Portland office to answer all those tiresome questions from the rest of the selectmen who have only had the opportunity to talk with him once [9-14-09, at Paris Elementary] since this whole law suit arrived on Paris' doorstep.
That would save not only money, but time, because critical questions for the Town of Paris still need to be answered at this juncture; if there is no lawyer in person to respond accurately, those questions can just be conveniently avoided...and forgotten....
Wonder if there's been written communication from Atty. Hole.... Interesting that the only references to and about Atty. Hole have come from Mr. Ivey, and maybe once from Mr.Ripley. Could Mr. Ivey, or Mr. Ripley, or perhaps Int. Mgr. Thorne, have forgotten to share anything with the rest of the board?
Perhaps Atty. Hole will be in attendance after all?
Oh, and are there any other tricky little items that couldn't be bothered getting themselves on the agenda...?
Come if you can. Probably camp out in the parking lot. Pretty small meeting room. Dress warm.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Continued...
In reference to the Paris Selectmen's 12-07-09 agenda in "Citizen Alert !!!" posted just below, the following information is intended simply as educational background for the reader. There has been no indication, one way or the other, at this time, whether Town Attorney Geoff Hole will attend the Monday session.
#6. Executive Session - Pursuant to Title 1, section 405(6)(E) to discuss pending litigation"
*Title 1, M.R.S.A., § 405(6)(E) relates to "Consultations between a body or agency and its attorney…."
* The Maine Municipal Association's explanation and directive, in its Municipal Officer's Manual (p. 97) says, "If the executive session will involve a discussion of a pending or possible law suit by the board and its attorney, the motion (to go into executive session) should at least indicate the general subject matter of the case and its title…. " It continues, "The attorney must be physically present at the meeting or at least be participating through a telephone conference call. A discussion of correspondence from the attorney…would not be justification for an executive session if the attorney wasn't also present."
#6. Executive Session - Pursuant to Title 1, section 405(6)(E) to discuss pending litigation"
*Title 1, M.R.S.A., § 405(6)(E) relates to "Consultations between a body or agency and its attorney…."
* The Maine Municipal Association's explanation and directive, in its Municipal Officer's Manual (p. 97) says, "If the executive session will involve a discussion of a pending or possible law suit by the board and its attorney, the motion (to go into executive session) should at least indicate the general subject matter of the case and its title…. " It continues, "The attorney must be physically present at the meeting or at least be participating through a telephone conference call. A discussion of correspondence from the attorney…would not be justification for an executive session if the attorney wasn't also present."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Citizen Alert!!!
Bright and shiny new time in the same old too small space (Town Office): Paris Selectmen meet this coming Monday, December 7 at 5 PM. See the agenda.
Recall discussed. Be sure to come and watch - and listen. No commenting, of course....
No mention yet of what happens with the regularly scheduled 12-14-09 meeting.
To be continued...
Recall discussed. Be sure to come and watch - and listen. No commenting, of course....
No mention yet of what happens with the regularly scheduled 12-14-09 meeting.
To be continued...
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Divert & Manipulate
Diversions. In Paris? Not parades filled with fun and laughter; not activities to showcase holiday music or craft fairs to showcase local talent. No. These diversions are beneficial to the community, bringing the community together in a positive way.
Diversion, in the sense of causing one to look in another direction, while something else is happening where one might not be looking. Diversion - meaning to draw attention away from.
Are there such diversions going on in Paris? Are there individuals seeking to throw sand in the gears and disturb and distort just the right situations to draw attention away from something(s) we shouldn't be noticing very much? Like noticing things happening in the municipal process, perhaps?
And what would attention need to be drawn away from, would you think?
Would attention need to be drawn away, from the fact that interviews started Monday11-30-09, for a new town manager, because there is a large legal question yet to be resolved in the status of the former town manager? A question that has a potential for costing the taxpayers a sizeable amount?
No looking. Not for you to see.
And speaking of the legal question, is there diversion, or worse, stonewalling, when citizens ask about whether the town attorney is able to speak freely about legal matters with all 5 selectmen, not just the 2?
How about the costs of all the above? No costs are ever mentioned. Are we not supposed to know or ask how much things cost - rather, are we expected to just open our taxpayer-wallets and shell out? Or are we to be kept so busy by endless crises erupting that we miss the window of opportunity to ask?
Focus would certainly not be welcome on the motives for, or the quality of, what passes for financial planning by the selectboard and interim town manager. Carelessly scraping together figures, in the hope of demonstrating a sound financial basis for hiring a tax-assessment company right this minute: could this hurry-up-and-do majority be serving another agenda? Who might benefit? And what happens if it can't happen before....? No one says.
Revaluation, in a thorough and well planned manner, has merit; the immediacy of this particular plan, however, is unsound - even reckless, at this point.
A new tank for a fire truck - a real need; a wise request. And if money needs to be moved to a different place in the budget to make it accessible for use, then Paris citizens should vote to do so. But why now? This has been a need for a good while; it has certainly been talked about before. Why now? At this particular moment? Points to be gained? With whom?
No looking closely: asking questions might translate to one not valuing the work of the firefighters and their needs. Asking any questions might indicate that one would welcome the risk of having one's house - as well as one's neighbor's - burn to the ground. Who's being manipulated here?
A bridge to be repaired? Of course unsafe bridges are not good. No one wants people to be unsafe, whether for walking or snowmobiling. But using public funds requires more than good intentions or favorite sports. What's the hurry? Before the sun sets? Along with these other plans for spending? And why no more details, or a chance for questions?
In recent years a few developers have added money to a recreational fund that is now being considered for tapping. This is public money, and the uses of it should be talked about by the public, in public. Chances are good many in the public might support it, if they get a chance to ask questions and have them answered. Again, why this push, now? What's coming up that makes this a project for right now? Any agenda being served by the 3-2 split to make points? Points for what, anyway?
Note: some of the same folks now pushing to use public money for this private snowmobile bridge are the very ones who closed significant portions of snowmobile trails last winter, when it looked as if support for the current 3-2 majority's campaign was flagging. Might this be an apology? A down-payment on continued support? A way for the contributors to that fund to get back the use of "their" money for something they like?
Whoops - no looking. Not for you. Look over there....
How about certain roads demanding to be taken over by the town? Oh - wait a minute - roads don't demand - they are impersonal objects. Rather, people who live and own land in areas serviced by certain roads: they are demanding. What is the expectation here? And exactly whose expectation is it? Why, at this juncture, is this issue coming up, again? It has been settled. Before. 3 times.
Why the sudden push all over again? Does someone need a new, immediate solution? How come? What happens if, as Mr. Hanley threatens in veiled tone, the town does get sued by citizens who have been told repeatedly that they are not being served? What then? Well, of course, there's that long waiting time for law suits to be resolved.... But, roads last quite a while. Why the push now? What's at stake now?
A fair amount of items not bearing too close a look. Diversions come in handy. Probably the more disruptive the better.
Diversion, in the sense of causing one to look in another direction, while something else is happening where one might not be looking. Diversion - meaning to draw attention away from.
Are there such diversions going on in Paris? Are there individuals seeking to throw sand in the gears and disturb and distort just the right situations to draw attention away from something(s) we shouldn't be noticing very much? Like noticing things happening in the municipal process, perhaps?
And what would attention need to be drawn away from, would you think?
Would attention need to be drawn away, from the fact that interviews started Monday11-30-09, for a new town manager, because there is a large legal question yet to be resolved in the status of the former town manager? A question that has a potential for costing the taxpayers a sizeable amount?
No looking. Not for you to see.
And speaking of the legal question, is there diversion, or worse, stonewalling, when citizens ask about whether the town attorney is able to speak freely about legal matters with all 5 selectmen, not just the 2?
How about the costs of all the above? No costs are ever mentioned. Are we not supposed to know or ask how much things cost - rather, are we expected to just open our taxpayer-wallets and shell out? Or are we to be kept so busy by endless crises erupting that we miss the window of opportunity to ask?
Focus would certainly not be welcome on the motives for, or the quality of, what passes for financial planning by the selectboard and interim town manager. Carelessly scraping together figures, in the hope of demonstrating a sound financial basis for hiring a tax-assessment company right this minute: could this hurry-up-and-do majority be serving another agenda? Who might benefit? And what happens if it can't happen before....? No one says.
Revaluation, in a thorough and well planned manner, has merit; the immediacy of this particular plan, however, is unsound - even reckless, at this point.
A new tank for a fire truck - a real need; a wise request. And if money needs to be moved to a different place in the budget to make it accessible for use, then Paris citizens should vote to do so. But why now? This has been a need for a good while; it has certainly been talked about before. Why now? At this particular moment? Points to be gained? With whom?
No looking closely: asking questions might translate to one not valuing the work of the firefighters and their needs. Asking any questions might indicate that one would welcome the risk of having one's house - as well as one's neighbor's - burn to the ground. Who's being manipulated here?
A bridge to be repaired? Of course unsafe bridges are not good. No one wants people to be unsafe, whether for walking or snowmobiling. But using public funds requires more than good intentions or favorite sports. What's the hurry? Before the sun sets? Along with these other plans for spending? And why no more details, or a chance for questions?
In recent years a few developers have added money to a recreational fund that is now being considered for tapping. This is public money, and the uses of it should be talked about by the public, in public. Chances are good many in the public might support it, if they get a chance to ask questions and have them answered. Again, why this push, now? What's coming up that makes this a project for right now? Any agenda being served by the 3-2 split to make points? Points for what, anyway?
Note: some of the same folks now pushing to use public money for this private snowmobile bridge are the very ones who closed significant portions of snowmobile trails last winter, when it looked as if support for the current 3-2 majority's campaign was flagging. Might this be an apology? A down-payment on continued support? A way for the contributors to that fund to get back the use of "their" money for something they like?
Whoops - no looking. Not for you. Look over there....
How about certain roads demanding to be taken over by the town? Oh - wait a minute - roads don't demand - they are impersonal objects. Rather, people who live and own land in areas serviced by certain roads: they are demanding. What is the expectation here? And exactly whose expectation is it? Why, at this juncture, is this issue coming up, again? It has been settled. Before. 3 times.
Why the sudden push all over again? Does someone need a new, immediate solution? How come? What happens if, as Mr. Hanley threatens in veiled tone, the town does get sued by citizens who have been told repeatedly that they are not being served? What then? Well, of course, there's that long waiting time for law suits to be resolved.... But, roads last quite a while. Why the push now? What's at stake now?
A fair amount of items not bearing too close a look. Diversions come in handy. Probably the more disruptive the better.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Primary Focus
The Paris Reporter has, as its primary focus, informing the people of this town about the news and issues affecting them. These words are in the mission statement at the top of the page.
Most of the information posted is researched by the editors; some is the result of research by others; all of the information is intended to be accurate, timely, and pertinent to the issues of the moment. If we learn that information posted was inaccurate, we will do our best to correct it.
In reference to a portion of our 11-16-09 posting, People? Choose?:
"Three weeks ago I received figures [from the town office] of what has been spent on Sharon Jackson's buyout. I was under the impression that the amount was for the budgeted year July 1 09 to June 30 10. It turns out the figures given me included a lump sum payment paid on the last payday of the fiscal year ended June 30 09. So, the figures I gave [posted in the 11-16-09 article] are incorrect."
Forrie Everett
Although that means there is more money available than the earlier post stated, the larger questions still remain:
*Whose town?
*Whose money?
*Whose agenda?
Most of the information posted is researched by the editors; some is the result of research by others; all of the information is intended to be accurate, timely, and pertinent to the issues of the moment. If we learn that information posted was inaccurate, we will do our best to correct it.
In reference to a portion of our 11-16-09 posting, People? Choose?:
"Three weeks ago I received figures [from the town office] of what has been spent on Sharon Jackson's buyout. I was under the impression that the amount was for the budgeted year July 1 09 to June 30 10. It turns out the figures given me included a lump sum payment paid on the last payday of the fiscal year ended June 30 09. So, the figures I gave [posted in the 11-16-09 article] are incorrect."
Forrie Everett
Although that means there is more money available than the earlier post stated, the larger questions still remain:
*Whose town?
*Whose money?
*Whose agenda?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Overheard up in the front...
"...not without the full board...we'd end up with a 2-to-2 vote and it wouldn't be a fair vote."
Ch. Ivey, selectmen's meeting, 11-23-09.
Fairness, is it? The game is to have fairness in it? [snaps fingers] Missed that.
The above quote came during a discussion about setting the date for an election; the election in question being one of recall for the chairman and his vice chairman. The audience, quiet tonight, on the whole, tittered un-magnanimously after the comment.
Little generosity for the duplicity of attaching the word fair to a chairman who has just bellowed at a citizen "You're done, [citizen]. We're not having those comments." Comments [hers] referring to a defaming and degrading series of statements made by a supporter of the current town administration about a number of citizens, several of whom are in the room.
Fair, applying to the two who set up a surprise special selectmen's meeting to exquisitely coincide with a day when one of the 2 selectmen of the split vote minority was out of town; not only reducing the minority to an even more minor state, but insuring that the remaining selectman in the minority could be set up to look as wrong as possible. [10-08-09, A Calculated Distraction]
Fair, as in what it is not, when a person runs [literally, on foot] into someone on purpose out in the parking lot and then pretends the bumped-into person is at fault....
Instead of the word "fair," consider the quote in its fuller context, using words that might better reflect the speaker's intent:
"We're not going to take action on that tonight, not without the full board....we'd end up with a 2-to-2 vote, and [my agenda and that of my supporters would not be well served]."
Fairness is a highly desireable quality. It goes with telling the truth and making responsible decisions. It is about recognizing that, as a public official, the people you serve matter; the private agenda that serves you, does not.
Ch. Ivey, selectmen's meeting, 11-23-09.
Fairness, is it? The game is to have fairness in it? [snaps fingers] Missed that.
The above quote came during a discussion about setting the date for an election; the election in question being one of recall for the chairman and his vice chairman. The audience, quiet tonight, on the whole, tittered un-magnanimously after the comment.
Little generosity for the duplicity of attaching the word fair to a chairman who has just bellowed at a citizen "You're done, [citizen]. We're not having those comments." Comments [hers] referring to a defaming and degrading series of statements made by a supporter of the current town administration about a number of citizens, several of whom are in the room.
Fair, applying to the two who set up a surprise special selectmen's meeting to exquisitely coincide with a day when one of the 2 selectmen of the split vote minority was out of town; not only reducing the minority to an even more minor state, but insuring that the remaining selectman in the minority could be set up to look as wrong as possible. [10-08-09, A Calculated Distraction]
Fair, as in what it is not, when a person runs [literally, on foot] into someone on purpose out in the parking lot and then pretends the bumped-into person is at fault....
Instead of the word "fair," consider the quote in its fuller context, using words that might better reflect the speaker's intent:
"We're not going to take action on that tonight, not without the full board....we'd end up with a 2-to-2 vote, and [my agenda and that of my supporters would not be well served]."
Fairness is a highly desireable quality. It goes with telling the truth and making responsible decisions. It is about recognizing that, as a public official, the people you serve matter; the private agenda that serves you, does not.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Several meaty items
Several meaty items up for discussion Monday 11-23-09, 6 pm at the Paris selectmen's meeting.
The deadline for applications for the new town manager position was, according to the 11-19 Advertiser Democrat, Sunday the 22nd. Selectmen will meet in executive session starting at 6pm to review the applications. The regular meeting will start as soon as they finish the review.
Among the items included will be: bids for the fire dept.'s water tanker; snow removal bids; recall petitions submitted;
...and approval and signing of a special town meeting warrant for December 3.
The Paris Reporter has posted several articles about the hurry-up-and-do-this approach of the current town administration on certain items, and Article #2 on the proposed warrant is a case in point:
To see if the Town will vote to transfer a sum not to exceed $225,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance to a Town of Paris Equalization Account to undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011.
There is certainly a need to take corrective measures regarding the current tax assessment situation in Paris. Current Tax Assessor John Brushwein has said publicly on more than one occasion that there are numerous errors and inequities.
But consider:
"...undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011."
1. In order for this to take effect with the 2010-2011 tax commitment, the entire revaluation must be complete by March 31, 2010;
2. At most - 3 months to complete every property in Paris;
3. Land will be snow covered - how accurate can this be to determine land in swamp areas, etc.;
4. Formal bid proposals should be sent to several bidders and references required from the bidders. Low bidder may not be most qualified with best references. Proposal should outline town's expectations for what will be done, when to complete, how property owners will be notified this will be happening, when to meet with property owners after new assessments are done and before actual commitment takes place (many people go south during these 3 months);
5. Paris's last revaluation was done in house by non professionals and we know the results. Rushing this process through will compound the problems;
6. Planning and budgeting for the revaluation to be complete for the 2011-2012 commitment would allow 2 budget years and revaluation to be complete by March 31, 2011. (By state law, April 1 is the cutoff date for property values for commitment).
It would appear that, if done correctly, a revaluation process is demanding, complex and, above all, time consuming. If, in the interest of having an in depth job done in a shorter time period than a single tax assessor could manage on his own, and a quality assessing firm is considered for hire, then financing that move is critical for a small town like Paris.
What motives could there be for trying to push through this process without proper planning and responsible budgeting for the possible $225,000 price tag?
Why would the selectmen want to push Interim Mgr. Thorne to come up with financing schemes that rely on questionable logic and predictions in order to accomplish the unattainable goal of revaluation of the whole town, start to finish, in 3 months?
A look at Thorne's proposed use of the surplus of Excise Tax Revenues as a major source for part of the $225,000 shows not an increase in revenues over the years, but a decrease. (Note column "Actual.") His use of the 2009-2010 amount $551,813 is not accurate, because it was not an anticipated budget figure; rather it was the amount of revenues received as of 4-29-09.
Thorne's suggestion to possibly run an overlay of $100,000 to pay for the remainder of the $225,000 simply means higher taxes for Paris citizens next year; "overlay" uses a formula that relates directly back to mil rate, the mechanism that determines higher or lower taxes.
It is trap for any management to forget that a budget figure on paper does not automatically equal that amount being at the ready for immediate use; municipal revenue is often in tax money to come in over a period of time. Taking huge chunks of unbudgeted money out all at once, e.g., the $225,000, can severely affect cash flow.
As for his other option of coming up with the rest of the money next year by not increasing the Excise Tax Revenue projection "...and expect[ing] the [anticipated]surplus to be sufficient to pay the remainder of the revaluation cost...", this is little more than playing the possibilities. What kind of fiscal responsibility is this?
Why? Why? Why the rush, gentlemen? These things you want rushed through, have to be done before... what?
The deadline for applications for the new town manager position was, according to the 11-19 Advertiser Democrat, Sunday the 22nd. Selectmen will meet in executive session starting at 6pm to review the applications. The regular meeting will start as soon as they finish the review.
Among the items included will be: bids for the fire dept.'s water tanker; snow removal bids; recall petitions submitted;
...and approval and signing of a special town meeting warrant for December 3.
The Paris Reporter has posted several articles about the hurry-up-and-do-this approach of the current town administration on certain items, and Article #2 on the proposed warrant is a case in point:
To see if the Town will vote to transfer a sum not to exceed $225,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance to a Town of Paris Equalization Account to undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011.
There is certainly a need to take corrective measures regarding the current tax assessment situation in Paris. Current Tax Assessor John Brushwein has said publicly on more than one occasion that there are numerous errors and inequities.
But consider:
"...undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011."
1. In order for this to take effect with the 2010-2011 tax commitment, the entire revaluation must be complete by March 31, 2010;
2. At most - 3 months to complete every property in Paris;
3. Land will be snow covered - how accurate can this be to determine land in swamp areas, etc.;
4. Formal bid proposals should be sent to several bidders and references required from the bidders. Low bidder may not be most qualified with best references. Proposal should outline town's expectations for what will be done, when to complete, how property owners will be notified this will be happening, when to meet with property owners after new assessments are done and before actual commitment takes place (many people go south during these 3 months);
5. Paris's last revaluation was done in house by non professionals and we know the results. Rushing this process through will compound the problems;
6. Planning and budgeting for the revaluation to be complete for the 2011-2012 commitment would allow 2 budget years and revaluation to be complete by March 31, 2011. (By state law, April 1 is the cutoff date for property values for commitment).
It would appear that, if done correctly, a revaluation process is demanding, complex and, above all, time consuming. If, in the interest of having an in depth job done in a shorter time period than a single tax assessor could manage on his own, and a quality assessing firm is considered for hire, then financing that move is critical for a small town like Paris.
What motives could there be for trying to push through this process without proper planning and responsible budgeting for the possible $225,000 price tag?
Why would the selectmen want to push Interim Mgr. Thorne to come up with financing schemes that rely on questionable logic and predictions in order to accomplish the unattainable goal of revaluation of the whole town, start to finish, in 3 months?
A look at Thorne's proposed use of the surplus of Excise Tax Revenues as a major source for part of the $225,000 shows not an increase in revenues over the years, but a decrease. (Note column "Actual.") His use of the 2009-2010 amount $551,813 is not accurate, because it was not an anticipated budget figure; rather it was the amount of revenues received as of 4-29-09.
Thorne's suggestion to possibly run an overlay of $100,000 to pay for the remainder of the $225,000 simply means higher taxes for Paris citizens next year; "overlay" uses a formula that relates directly back to mil rate, the mechanism that determines higher or lower taxes.
It is trap for any management to forget that a budget figure on paper does not automatically equal that amount being at the ready for immediate use; municipal revenue is often in tax money to come in over a period of time. Taking huge chunks of unbudgeted money out all at once, e.g., the $225,000, can severely affect cash flow.
As for his other option of coming up with the rest of the money next year by not increasing the Excise Tax Revenue projection "...and expect[ing] the [anticipated]surplus to be sufficient to pay the remainder of the revaluation cost...", this is little more than playing the possibilities. What kind of fiscal responsibility is this?
Why? Why? Why the rush, gentlemen? These things you want rushed through, have to be done before... what?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Citizen Reminder
Monday November 23, Paris Fire Station selectman meet. According to the 11-19-09 Advertiser Democrat the meeting will start with an executive session at 6 pm to review town manager applicant resumes. Plan to come then and see who might be running our town and what's going to happen next.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Which Tuesday was that?
Overheard just recently from a selectmen (not Ch. Ivey):
"I didn't hear him [the town's attorney] say anything like that."
Advertiser Democrat, 11-12-09:
"According to Ivey, town attorney Geoffrey Hole gave the go-ahead to re-hire, Tuesday, saying the Jackson suit 'could take years' to resolve."
"Resignations," p.7A
Tuesday, was it? Which Tuesday was that? The Advertiser came out 11-12-09...perhaps Tuesday the 10th? Reassuring, that is; to hear that our chairman listens and pays close attention to the attorney whose fees Paris taxpayers are covering.
But that Tuesday, 11-10-09 doesn't seem to fit quite right. Because on October 8, at 5PM at the Paris Town Office there was a surprise special selectmen's meeting with 6 items on the agenda; #4 was "Discussion and action on hiring a new town manager."
Ch. Ivey's point was that Int. Thorne had decided to finish up earlier than he had originally said, and had recommended the town begin to look for a new manager. [This site 10-12-09, "Why the rush, gentlemen?"]
Perhaps the Tuesday being referred to was the 6th... Tuesday, November 10? Tuesday, October 6? Both Tuesdays. Easy mistake.
But perhaps the Tuesday in question is earlier yet. Close examination of the NPC-TV DVD recording of the 10-08 meeting picked up on the use of past tense:
"Sel. Ripley: Mike made a ...with his memo his desire to have someone on board prior to the new budget system warrants us to...ah...and as you have...we've started...we've put the ad out...we need to move forward in that process."
[this site 10-08-09]
Possibly the selectman mentioned in our opening "overheard" comment didn't hear the attorney's comment because he simply missed it.
Might there be another possibility? Could this whole comment have been intended as a not-very-clever ruse to deflect growing suspicion about the motives for hiring a new manager at this juncture? At a time when the town is facing an unresolved lawsuit? And has no plan for financing such a position under the town's present budget?
What if the ruse is to deflect attention from the consideration of a particular new manager?
The question cannot be asked enough times: Why the rush?
A special town meeting has been scheduled for December 3 to ask voters to re-designate funds from an insurance settlement to a different project. That could be innocent enough...but then there is the questionable sales pitch for the proposed property revaluation: Get the Good Price by Signing Up Now!
No problem: simply borrow the money from ourselves, and just as simply pay ourselves back...within a year or so...only a little tax hike. Taxpayers love tax hikes.
And a new manager - just before the budget process. Precarious timing for a new manager.... one could wonder whether that timing was chosen on purpose for hiring? Whose agenda could this be?
"I didn't hear him [the town's attorney] say anything like that."
Advertiser Democrat, 11-12-09:
"According to Ivey, town attorney Geoffrey Hole gave the go-ahead to re-hire, Tuesday, saying the Jackson suit 'could take years' to resolve."
"Resignations," p.7A
Tuesday, was it? Which Tuesday was that? The Advertiser came out 11-12-09...perhaps Tuesday the 10th? Reassuring, that is; to hear that our chairman listens and pays close attention to the attorney whose fees Paris taxpayers are covering.
But that Tuesday, 11-10-09 doesn't seem to fit quite right. Because on October 8, at 5PM at the Paris Town Office there was a surprise special selectmen's meeting with 6 items on the agenda; #4 was "Discussion and action on hiring a new town manager."
Ch. Ivey's point was that Int. Thorne had decided to finish up earlier than he had originally said, and had recommended the town begin to look for a new manager. [This site 10-12-09, "Why the rush, gentlemen?"]
Perhaps the Tuesday being referred to was the 6th... Tuesday, November 10? Tuesday, October 6? Both Tuesdays. Easy mistake.
But perhaps the Tuesday in question is earlier yet. Close examination of the NPC-TV DVD recording of the 10-08 meeting picked up on the use of past tense:
"Sel. Ripley: Mike made a ...with his memo his desire to have someone on board prior to the new budget system warrants us to...ah...and as you have...we've started...we've put the ad out...we need to move forward in that process."
[this site 10-08-09]
Possibly the selectman mentioned in our opening "overheard" comment didn't hear the attorney's comment because he simply missed it.
Might there be another possibility? Could this whole comment have been intended as a not-very-clever ruse to deflect growing suspicion about the motives for hiring a new manager at this juncture? At a time when the town is facing an unresolved lawsuit? And has no plan for financing such a position under the town's present budget?
What if the ruse is to deflect attention from the consideration of a particular new manager?
The question cannot be asked enough times: Why the rush?
A special town meeting has been scheduled for December 3 to ask voters to re-designate funds from an insurance settlement to a different project. That could be innocent enough...but then there is the questionable sales pitch for the proposed property revaluation: Get the Good Price by Signing Up Now!
No problem: simply borrow the money from ourselves, and just as simply pay ourselves back...within a year or so...only a little tax hike. Taxpayers love tax hikes.
And a new manager - just before the budget process. Precarious timing for a new manager.... one could wonder whether that timing was chosen on purpose for hiring? Whose agenda could this be?
Monday, November 16, 2009
People? Choose?
It's all about the people. "Let's let the people choose." Heard that the other night at our selectmen's meeting from the vice chair.
Is letting the people choose good if the choice is an item high on an elected official's priority list - but not good if it involves allowing budgetary oversight or hard questions about long term plans?
Do the people get to choose whether the budget they voted in last June is followed? According to MMA description, in a town meeting form of government (e.g., the Town of Paris) the legislative body determines what laws ought to govern the town and "the amounts of money to be spent." Does that include money-decisions made in secret (even from part of the selectboard) that are gobbling up money budgeted for items - like legal fees - with no thought for the future? [See earlier posts (1) (2) (3) on this topic.]
Do the people get to weigh in on the ill-advised plan to consider hiring a full time town manager before (1) the interim town manager is finished being paid, and (2) the former town manager's legal claims are resolved? Where is the town's attorney, anyway? Does he only speak in whispers to a solitary selectman at odd intervals, now and then?
Is someone trying to convince voters that all funds are fluid in this town? That all money is equal? That if it's on paper - somewhere - we can use it? And if it's not on paper, but someone talks about the need for it, magic will happen?
[Figures below are from Budget Committee Ch. Forrie Everett]
Consider:
Former Town Mgr. Jackson's wages 7-1-09 to 7-1-10 were budgeted at $64,116.00. As of 11-03-09, she has been paid $42,774.52.
Assuming Int. Mgr. Thorne stays, from 7-13-09 to 2-13-10, he will have been paid $18.600.00
The 2 will have cost the town a total of $61,374.52. That leaves just $2742.00. Twenty-one weeks from 2-1-10 to 7-1-10 when new budget comes out; that makes it $130.57 per week for this new town manager. Whatdayathink?
Take it from the contingency fund? Oops, using that for legal fees .... Fire equipment really shouldn't really be all that negotiable....well, there's the insurance money for the damaged roof of the old fire station...no one needs to vote to use designated funds for something different, do they? Why would the voters need to be asked anything? And of course there's the rushing out to hire a company to do the new property revaluation for the town, to be paid for by borrowing against our own money. Every tax payer will see that added to his/her bill next year...We have to do this reval before...before...what? or what will happen?
Too much. Way too much.
Is letting the people choose good if the choice is an item high on an elected official's priority list - but not good if it involves allowing budgetary oversight or hard questions about long term plans?
Do the people get to choose whether the budget they voted in last June is followed? According to MMA description, in a town meeting form of government (e.g., the Town of Paris) the legislative body determines what laws ought to govern the town and "the amounts of money to be spent." Does that include money-decisions made in secret (even from part of the selectboard) that are gobbling up money budgeted for items - like legal fees - with no thought for the future? [See earlier posts (1) (2) (3) on this topic.]
Do the people get to weigh in on the ill-advised plan to consider hiring a full time town manager before (1) the interim town manager is finished being paid, and (2) the former town manager's legal claims are resolved? Where is the town's attorney, anyway? Does he only speak in whispers to a solitary selectman at odd intervals, now and then?
Is someone trying to convince voters that all funds are fluid in this town? That all money is equal? That if it's on paper - somewhere - we can use it? And if it's not on paper, but someone talks about the need for it, magic will happen?
[Figures below are from Budget Committee Ch. Forrie Everett]
Consider:
Former Town Mgr. Jackson's wages 7-1-09 to 7-1-10 were budgeted at $64,116.00. As of 11-03-09, she has been paid $42,774.52.
Assuming Int. Mgr. Thorne stays, from 7-13-09 to 2-13-10, he will have been paid $18.600.00
The 2 will have cost the town a total of $61,374.52. That leaves just $2742.00. Twenty-one weeks from 2-1-10 to 7-1-10 when new budget comes out; that makes it $130.57 per week for this new town manager. Whatdayathink?
Take it from the contingency fund? Oops, using that for legal fees .... Fire equipment really shouldn't really be all that negotiable....well, there's the insurance money for the damaged roof of the old fire station...no one needs to vote to use designated funds for something different, do they? Why would the voters need to be asked anything? And of course there's the rushing out to hire a company to do the new property revaluation for the town, to be paid for by borrowing against our own money. Every tax payer will see that added to his/her bill next year...We have to do this reval before...before...what? or what will happen?
Too much. Way too much.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Holding court
Monday night, Paris voters sat as a captive audience to lawyerly pitch and prattle surrounding the issue of Town Farm Road (yet again) and who should be taking care of this road into Town Farm Estates.
Bubbles of thought could be imagined across the audience: "We need a proper road into our homes." ..."The town needs to be doing something about this."..."Why can't they get this right?"... "This is just the same old same old."... "Why are they so mean to us?"
And there might be other thought bubbles: "What's behind this latest revisit to the situation?"... "Who's behind this?"... "Is this really just about the road and its physical maintenance?"..."Why the focus on who said what, when, and the times in the past when decisions did not reflect the action desired by the lawyer currently speaking?"
..."Why isn't there interest, on the part of the 3-2 voting majority selectmen, in Selectman Herrick's suggestion that an engineer be brought in to assess the road to see if the town might be able to help?" ... " Not an engineer? Just someone to say who's responsible for the road?"
Mr. Hanley spent a good deal of his 33.5 minutes of meeting time Monday trying to assure his audience that the Town Farm Road Association had not wanted to litigate in 2005, they had only wanted to "have these questions answered." They don't want to sue the town now, either, he said; they just want to sit down and talk - to come to some kind of "reasonable outcome."
Mr. Hanley vented his personal frustration that he had received only a "two-sentence" response to these questions from the Paris town manager in April 2005. His presentation Monday, including the interrogation of Selectman Glover, seemed directed toward proving that the former town manager had personally prevented him from facilitating the response he had sought for his clients at that time.
There seemed an intent to show that the town manager had handled the situation badly, i.e., not spoken with selectmen, not corresponded properly through channels; had given an irresponsible response; case in point, contending that the two-sentence letter, mentioned in the previous paragraph, had been an independent action on her part.
Referring to the two-sentence letter, Mr. Hanley said "On April 10th [2005] I received a letter from the town manager, Sharon Jackson...." Except, the letter to him, and cc'd to the selectmen, shows a different date, April 12, 2005, i.e., the day after a regular selectmen's meeting that included an executive session to meet with the town's attorney. Could the use of the wrong date on the letter, plus the omission of the selectmen being notified, have been, perhaps, just a slip of Mr. Hanley's tongue?
Mr. Hanley also complained he was not allowed to speak to the town's attorney himself in April 2005 about the questions he wanted resolved. Could there have been more details to that situation? Details that perhaps might not fit the current need?
What might be the intent here? Could it be to show that the town and its lawyers (a) got the original plan to discontinue the road as a town road in 1933, wrong? (b) in reaffirming the discontinuance in newer legal language in 1967, still got it wrong? (c) in working on it in 2005, got it wrong, again?
Or, could it be that Mr. Hanley's "reasonable outcome" might not mean fixing the road, but rather, getting what we want on our own terms?
Bubbles of thought could be imagined across the audience: "We need a proper road into our homes." ..."The town needs to be doing something about this."..."Why can't they get this right?"... "This is just the same old same old."... "Why are they so mean to us?"
And there might be other thought bubbles: "What's behind this latest revisit to the situation?"... "Who's behind this?"... "Is this really just about the road and its physical maintenance?"..."Why the focus on who said what, when, and the times in the past when decisions did not reflect the action desired by the lawyer currently speaking?"
..."Why isn't there interest, on the part of the 3-2 voting majority selectmen, in Selectman Herrick's suggestion that an engineer be brought in to assess the road to see if the town might be able to help?" ... " Not an engineer? Just someone to say who's responsible for the road?"
Mr. Hanley spent a good deal of his 33.5 minutes of meeting time Monday trying to assure his audience that the Town Farm Road Association had not wanted to litigate in 2005, they had only wanted to "have these questions answered." They don't want to sue the town now, either, he said; they just want to sit down and talk - to come to some kind of "reasonable outcome."
Mr. Hanley vented his personal frustration that he had received only a "two-sentence" response to these questions from the Paris town manager in April 2005. His presentation Monday, including the interrogation of Selectman Glover, seemed directed toward proving that the former town manager had personally prevented him from facilitating the response he had sought for his clients at that time.
There seemed an intent to show that the town manager had handled the situation badly, i.e., not spoken with selectmen, not corresponded properly through channels; had given an irresponsible response; case in point, contending that the two-sentence letter, mentioned in the previous paragraph, had been an independent action on her part.
Referring to the two-sentence letter, Mr. Hanley said "On April 10th [2005] I received a letter from the town manager, Sharon Jackson...." Except, the letter to him, and cc'd to the selectmen, shows a different date, April 12, 2005, i.e., the day after a regular selectmen's meeting that included an executive session to meet with the town's attorney. Could the use of the wrong date on the letter, plus the omission of the selectmen being notified, have been, perhaps, just a slip of Mr. Hanley's tongue?
Mr. Hanley also complained he was not allowed to speak to the town's attorney himself in April 2005 about the questions he wanted resolved. Could there have been more details to that situation? Details that perhaps might not fit the current need?
What might be the intent here? Could it be to show that the town and its lawyers (a) got the original plan to discontinue the road as a town road in 1933, wrong? (b) in reaffirming the discontinuance in newer legal language in 1967, still got it wrong? (c) in working on it in 2005, got it wrong, again?
Or, could it be that Mr. Hanley's "reasonable outcome" might not mean fixing the road, but rather, getting what we want on our own terms?
Speculations & Facts
Speculation:
Will there be a new town manager voted in at the next selectman's meeting November 23? Anyone we know?
Fact:
Town Clerk and Registrar of Voters Anne Pastore has given notice that she will resign, effective at the end of November.
Tax Assessor John Brushwein has accepted a new position inTrenton, Maine.
Will there be a new town manager voted in at the next selectman's meeting November 23? Anyone we know?
Fact:
Town Clerk and Registrar of Voters Anne Pastore has given notice that she will resign, effective at the end of November.
Tax Assessor John Brushwein has accepted a new position inTrenton, Maine.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Overheard...
Citizen: Are you going to recuse yourself [from a discussion about a road maintenance issue where a family member owns property] ?
V-Chair: No. I said no, I'm not going to.
Citzen: Then, you're going against the law?
V-Chair: Okay.
V-Chair: No. I said no, I'm not going to.
Citzen: Then, you're going against the law?
V-Chair: Okay.
Some information, but mostly questions
Some important issues on the selectmen's agenda Monday night, issues affecting public safety; about land use; about financial support for individual citizen group requests.
Topics relevant to those who live here: fire equipment; tax revaluation; paying for road care; ordinance amendments; snowmobile funding request. In the running of a town, what's the common factor?
What brought 75 or so people to a meeting where there is little or no public input?
The answer in common: money. In the long run and in the short run. Whether asking for it, or looking to direct the use of it, or fearing it could be spent recklessly if not enough oversight.
At the end of the night, some unanswered questions:
Why the need for courtroom antics to readdress a concern about the care of a local subdivision's private road? For 30 minutes? Who was the audience? Is the road itself the only issue? Is there another agenda?
Why the need to hurry and sign up an assessment firm to do the revaluation? The process to be set up within the next 3 weeks? Our current tax assessor says revaluation is necessary because of the inequities between some sections of town, some individual landowners, some legal descriptions for land assessment; and a team, with his suggestions to go by, could move faster. But by December 3? Would that limit his opportunity to give input on very many specific problems? Why the hurry?
Is this the way other towns sign up an assessment firm (if they do)...to allow 3 weeks to go out for bids and get recommendations and come back to the citizens to tell them about the process in the first place and then get approval from the citizens somewhere in there to spend the money to have this done?
What is going to happen after December that will make this process impossible to consider? Was there mention of saving $15,000-$20,000 if we do it in December? Has there been a specific firm approached already by someone? When Assessor John Brushwein made the suggestion several meetings ago about a professional firm to do the revaluation, was that considered the research necessary to make this December 3 town meeting vote plan?
What about this $225,000 that the town could borrow from "undesignated funds" to pay for this firm (that will magically cost only 225 K) - and paying it back next year on each and every individual tax bill for Paris taxpayers? Wait a minute....can we talk about this? Before you get us all at the table to sign the paper?
And what about the new town manager? (That was a hurry up job, too. Why was that?) The executive session was just beginning when the audience left at 9:15 Monday PM. Is this discussion merely a ruse? Has the decision long been made? By a few?
Again. Over and over. More questions than answers.
Topics relevant to those who live here: fire equipment; tax revaluation; paying for road care; ordinance amendments; snowmobile funding request. In the running of a town, what's the common factor?
What brought 75 or so people to a meeting where there is little or no public input?
The answer in common: money. In the long run and in the short run. Whether asking for it, or looking to direct the use of it, or fearing it could be spent recklessly if not enough oversight.
At the end of the night, some unanswered questions:
Why the need for courtroom antics to readdress a concern about the care of a local subdivision's private road? For 30 minutes? Who was the audience? Is the road itself the only issue? Is there another agenda?
Why the need to hurry and sign up an assessment firm to do the revaluation? The process to be set up within the next 3 weeks? Our current tax assessor says revaluation is necessary because of the inequities between some sections of town, some individual landowners, some legal descriptions for land assessment; and a team, with his suggestions to go by, could move faster. But by December 3? Would that limit his opportunity to give input on very many specific problems? Why the hurry?
Is this the way other towns sign up an assessment firm (if they do)...to allow 3 weeks to go out for bids and get recommendations and come back to the citizens to tell them about the process in the first place and then get approval from the citizens somewhere in there to spend the money to have this done?
What is going to happen after December that will make this process impossible to consider? Was there mention of saving $15,000-$20,000 if we do it in December? Has there been a specific firm approached already by someone? When Assessor John Brushwein made the suggestion several meetings ago about a professional firm to do the revaluation, was that considered the research necessary to make this December 3 town meeting vote plan?
What about this $225,000 that the town could borrow from "undesignated funds" to pay for this firm (that will magically cost only 225 K) - and paying it back next year on each and every individual tax bill for Paris taxpayers? Wait a minute....can we talk about this? Before you get us all at the table to sign the paper?
And what about the new town manager? (That was a hurry up job, too. Why was that?) The executive session was just beginning when the audience left at 9:15 Monday PM. Is this discussion merely a ruse? Has the decision long been made? By a few?
Again. Over and over. More questions than answers.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
All Present and Accounted For
Citizen reminder:
Paris Selectmen meet Monday 11-09-09
7PM Paris Fire Station
Come if you can. It looks as if all selectmen will be able to be present and accounted for this meeting.
Perhaps the message has become clear that citizens are watching the gears moving the machine that runs the Town of Paris. There have consistently been more than 40 interested citizens at the regularly scheduled selectmen meetings for several months now; and the administration has automatically scheduled the last 2 in succession for the meeting room at the Paris fire station.
[The town office meeting room has a capacity of only 50: 5 selectmen; town manager; 2 reporters; a cameraman from NPCTV; a policeman, or two; leaving room for 40 interested citizens at the most.]
There are some substantial topics on the agenda this time, including the executive session that is, according to the agenda, a discussion of applications for the new town manager position. Any decision made in that session - or any executive session - must be voted on in public after the session.
Will the salary under discussion be princely? Will the position offered be another interim one, in case April's court date for the pending law suit reveals a verdict of illegal firing of Sharon Jackson? And just how soon will this new person be hired? What else will this town manager be expected to do?
In the rush to get a new manager in place to help with the budget planning for fiscal year 2010-2011, beginning in March 2010, will any correct and careful procedures be overlooked in order to fill any private, personal agenda? Will the good of the whole town always be upermost in the minds of all the selectmen?
Paris Selectmen meet Monday 11-09-09
7PM Paris Fire Station
Come if you can. It looks as if all selectmen will be able to be present and accounted for this meeting.
Perhaps the message has become clear that citizens are watching the gears moving the machine that runs the Town of Paris. There have consistently been more than 40 interested citizens at the regularly scheduled selectmen meetings for several months now; and the administration has automatically scheduled the last 2 in succession for the meeting room at the Paris fire station.
[The town office meeting room has a capacity of only 50: 5 selectmen; town manager; 2 reporters; a cameraman from NPCTV; a policeman, or two; leaving room for 40 interested citizens at the most.]
There are some substantial topics on the agenda this time, including the executive session that is, according to the agenda, a discussion of applications for the new town manager position. Any decision made in that session - or any executive session - must be voted on in public after the session.
Will the salary under discussion be princely? Will the position offered be another interim one, in case April's court date for the pending law suit reveals a verdict of illegal firing of Sharon Jackson? And just how soon will this new person be hired? What else will this town manager be expected to do?
In the rush to get a new manager in place to help with the budget planning for fiscal year 2010-2011, beginning in March 2010, will any correct and careful procedures be overlooked in order to fill any private, personal agenda? Will the good of the whole town always be upermost in the minds of all the selectmen?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Correcting Some Misconceptions
Clarifying a few points about the recently enacted recall ordinance in Paris:
*How is a vacancy filled on the selectboard if a selectman is unelected at a recall election? A special town meeting may be called. The operative word is may. [30-A, MRSA §2521, Call of Town Meeting; 30-A; MRSA §2602(3), Vacancy in Municipal Office]
*Can the board of selectmen appoint someone to fill a vacancy - temporarily or otherwise? A vacancy on the board of selectmen, or in any other elected office, can only be filled by an election by secret ballot. [30-A, MRSA §2528, Secret Ballot, (1) Acceptance by town].
*How often can recall of an elected official be attempted? If an official is not removed in a recall election, he or she can not be subjected to another recall attempt for another six months. [Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine §6]
*How is a vacancy filled on the selectboard if a selectman is unelected at a recall election? A special town meeting may be called. The operative word is may. [30-A, MRSA §2521, Call of Town Meeting; 30-A; MRSA §2602(3), Vacancy in Municipal Office]
*Can the board of selectmen appoint someone to fill a vacancy - temporarily or otherwise? A vacancy on the board of selectmen, or in any other elected office, can only be filled by an election by secret ballot. [30-A, MRSA §2528, Secret Ballot, (1) Acceptance by town].
*How often can recall of an elected official be attempted? If an official is not removed in a recall election, he or she can not be subjected to another recall attempt for another six months. [Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine §6]
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Just the Facts
A referendum was held in Paris on 11/3/09, with a local recall ordinance and seven state questions on the ballot…
At the end of the day, 2136 Paris voters had expressed an opinion…
On the question of whether to enact the local recall ordinance, 1556 said, "Yes," 537 said, "No," and 43 chose to say nothing at all.
These are just the facts.
At the end of the day, 2136 Paris voters had expressed an opinion…
On the question of whether to enact the local recall ordinance, 1556 said, "Yes," 537 said, "No," and 43 chose to say nothing at all.
These are just the facts.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Citizen Reminder...
Be sure you vote Nov. 3, 2009
Paris polls open 8AM - 8PM
Paris Fire Station
Not registered? You can register, and then vote, at the polls.
Paris polls open 8AM - 8PM
Paris Fire Station
Not registered? You can register, and then vote, at the polls.
Weigh in on:
*Several critical state issues;
*Enactment of a local recall ordinance.
You may also vote before the 3rd at the town office, 8:30-4:30.
Do You Wonder...
...if a new town manager has already been picked to replace Interim Mike Thorne?
...if a full time contract will be offered a new candidate, despite a question pending before the court on whether former town manager S. Jackson was removed legally? Leaving Paris to face the possibility of having two full time managers? And paying severance, again?
...if wisdom would prevail, and a second interim manager to replace Thorne might be hired until legal questions were resolved, thus not further burdening the taxpayers of Paris?
...if the costly advertising for this new post, including 2 weekend editions of the Sun Journal - good options, but not inexpensive - will provide enough cover in case a prearranged candidate has been chosen?
...if, at the next selectmen's meeting Nov. 9th, after a quick executive session, (no matter whether all 5 selectmen have had previous knowledge of all, or any, candidates) there will be a vote on a new town manager?
...if any of the above would surprise anyone?
...if a full time contract will be offered a new candidate, despite a question pending before the court on whether former town manager S. Jackson was removed legally? Leaving Paris to face the possibility of having two full time managers? And paying severance, again?
...if wisdom would prevail, and a second interim manager to replace Thorne might be hired until legal questions were resolved, thus not further burdening the taxpayers of Paris?
...if the costly advertising for this new post, including 2 weekend editions of the Sun Journal - good options, but not inexpensive - will provide enough cover in case a prearranged candidate has been chosen?
...if, at the next selectmen's meeting Nov. 9th, after a quick executive session, (no matter whether all 5 selectmen have had previous knowledge of all, or any, candidates) there will be a vote on a new town manager?
...if any of the above would surprise anyone?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Overheard in The Office...
...by several pairs of ears:
An envelope...left in the office of the interim manager? An envelope with 5 copies of a resume from an applicant for the new town manager position? Steve Someone...McAllister, that was it.
[editor's note: Mr. McAllister, who resigned in 2004, was the immediate predecessor of recently fired Paris Town Manager Sharon Jackson, and has been in attendance at every meeting of the Paris selectmen for some months.]
An envelope...left in the office of the interim manager? An envelope with 5 copies of a resume from an applicant for the new town manager position? Steve Someone...McAllister, that was it.
[editor's note: Mr. McAllister, who resigned in 2004, was the immediate predecessor of recently fired Paris Town Manager Sharon Jackson, and has been in attendance at every meeting of the Paris selectmen for some months.]
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
50% Used Up
Closer to 54%, actually. That would be the amount used from the $8,000 line item for all legal expenses in the town budget passed by Paris voters 6-13-09.
Emergency expenses, rate changes, state of the economy, all possible factors that can claim budgeted funds. The factor that claimed a good chunk of these budgeted funds, however, was a poorly- thought-through decision to dismiss the previous town manager on the personal agenda of a portion of the selectboard, at the very first meeting of one of the newly elected selectmen. The loosely-framed reason was to take the town in "a different direction."
The town manager who was fired has sued for damages; legal discussions may or may not have been shared with the whole selectboard; and the entire town is now paying the unnecessary legal costs of this poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action.
The town has received the following bills from Bernstein Shur, the firm of Town Attorney Geoffrey Hole:
Bills for July ($1,199.04) and August ($1,482.03) appeared in the 10-07-09 posting The Importance of Why on this site. September's two bills come to $1615.32; total for 3 months, $4296.39
As of 9/30/09, after removing $719.50 worth of itemized charges from the 3 bills for other legal issues not related to the law suit, the total unnecessary legal costs to this town for the poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action come to $3576.89. This is roughly 45% of the $8,000. There are some months of costly legal work to go before the court date; and if the 3 selectmen of the 3-2 split vote insist on a trial, there will be even more expenses.
The decision that brought on these costs was unannounced, and not agreed on. And the costs certainly were not budgeted for.
So much for caring about the welfare of the whole town...
Emergency expenses, rate changes, state of the economy, all possible factors that can claim budgeted funds. The factor that claimed a good chunk of these budgeted funds, however, was a poorly- thought-through decision to dismiss the previous town manager on the personal agenda of a portion of the selectboard, at the very first meeting of one of the newly elected selectmen. The loosely-framed reason was to take the town in "a different direction."
The town manager who was fired has sued for damages; legal discussions may or may not have been shared with the whole selectboard; and the entire town is now paying the unnecessary legal costs of this poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action.
The town has received the following bills from Bernstein Shur, the firm of Town Attorney Geoffrey Hole:
Bills for July ($1,199.04) and August ($1,482.03) appeared in the 10-07-09 posting The Importance of Why on this site. September's two bills come to $1615.32; total for 3 months, $4296.39
As of 9/30/09, after removing $719.50 worth of itemized charges from the 3 bills for other legal issues not related to the law suit, the total unnecessary legal costs to this town for the poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action come to $3576.89. This is roughly 45% of the $8,000. There are some months of costly legal work to go before the court date; and if the 3 selectmen of the 3-2 split vote insist on a trial, there will be even more expenses.
The decision that brought on these costs was unannounced, and not agreed on. And the costs certainly were not budgeted for.
So much for caring about the welfare of the whole town...
Monday, October 26, 2009
Questions Not Asked
6:50 PM, and the room was just about still. 7 PM, and it WAS still. No rustling, chit-chatting, or scuffling of feet. 49 citizens, 2 reporters, and one cameraman facing the 4 Paris selectmen sitting at the front table. People in the audience nodded to each other with knowing gestures and grim expressions.
There was a new dynamic this evening: an air of non-energy.
The October 26th meeting began in the mumble and murmur mode. The audience strained to hear the items in #4, "Accounts Payable". But, of the 3 more talkative Selectmen, 2 seemed pretty much exhausted, and had difficulty getting words past the 2nd row; in fact, spoke in a quiet, conversational tone...to each other, it would seem.
Is this the new ploy? To make the audience feel as if they're not there? That they are inconsequential by trying to discount them?
A frequent supporter of the current majority was recognized to make a particular presentation, and invited to "come up here if you want" [to the front of the room] and speak good and loud! The speaker was determined to be lacking in decibels. He turned his back completely to the 49, and, when urged to speak up by those behind him, addressed only the front table, tossing over his shoulder, "I'm here to address my elected officials tonight. I'm not here to discuss with any of you...I can't speak up. This is the best I can do. Please listen or hear the tape..."
Oh, yes. You can be sure of that. Hidden agendas become absolutely transparent to the camera.
So. Moving on...
22 items on this agenda...19 concerns, several of real merit. Ambitious. In the 4th month of a new administration, voters tend to look for that.
There will most certainly be thorough mention of the agenda items themselves by other factions of our local media. But there is also merit in focusing on what was not asked; what did no one mention, or follow up on?
There was a discussion of the need, and funding, for a new or repaired tank truck for the fire department. Along with a request for Chief Frost to get bids, there was also mention of a $15,000 "Contingency Fund." Then a little nervous laughter, and the changing of the subject. What kind of options are left in our town budget for anything we need, e.g., proper fire fighting equipment, never mind something we are now stuck with because of careless leadership, e.g., costs for a law suit because of a reckless administrative move?
What progress has there been in the search for a new town manager? What discussion for qualifications? Does anyone realize that there are enlightened communities, e.g., Lewiston, Sabattus, for two, that have search committees that include some selectmen along with a number of voters? Who is going to pick this new manager in Paris? Why does that seem such a worrisome thought?
There was a point made about a selectboard member who was closely related to a landowner with a specific interest in the resolution of a matter. Why was that point completely ignored by the selectman in question in his ensuing monologue on how he felt the issue should be decided? What is there about conflict of interest that is so difficult to understand?
So many important questions in need of answers.
There was a new dynamic this evening: an air of non-energy.
The October 26th meeting began in the mumble and murmur mode. The audience strained to hear the items in #4, "Accounts Payable". But, of the 3 more talkative Selectmen, 2 seemed pretty much exhausted, and had difficulty getting words past the 2nd row; in fact, spoke in a quiet, conversational tone...to each other, it would seem.
Is this the new ploy? To make the audience feel as if they're not there? That they are inconsequential by trying to discount them?
A frequent supporter of the current majority was recognized to make a particular presentation, and invited to "come up here if you want" [to the front of the room] and speak good and loud! The speaker was determined to be lacking in decibels. He turned his back completely to the 49, and, when urged to speak up by those behind him, addressed only the front table, tossing over his shoulder, "I'm here to address my elected officials tonight. I'm not here to discuss with any of you...I can't speak up. This is the best I can do. Please listen or hear the tape..."
Oh, yes. You can be sure of that. Hidden agendas become absolutely transparent to the camera.
So. Moving on...
22 items on this agenda...19 concerns, several of real merit. Ambitious. In the 4th month of a new administration, voters tend to look for that.
There will most certainly be thorough mention of the agenda items themselves by other factions of our local media. But there is also merit in focusing on what was not asked; what did no one mention, or follow up on?
There was a discussion of the need, and funding, for a new or repaired tank truck for the fire department. Along with a request for Chief Frost to get bids, there was also mention of a $15,000 "Contingency Fund." Then a little nervous laughter, and the changing of the subject. What kind of options are left in our town budget for anything we need, e.g., proper fire fighting equipment, never mind something we are now stuck with because of careless leadership, e.g., costs for a law suit because of a reckless administrative move?
What progress has there been in the search for a new town manager? What discussion for qualifications? Does anyone realize that there are enlightened communities, e.g., Lewiston, Sabattus, for two, that have search committees that include some selectmen along with a number of voters? Who is going to pick this new manager in Paris? Why does that seem such a worrisome thought?
There was a point made about a selectboard member who was closely related to a landowner with a specific interest in the resolution of a matter. Why was that point completely ignored by the selectman in question in his ensuing monologue on how he felt the issue should be decided? What is there about conflict of interest that is so difficult to understand?
So many important questions in need of answers.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Citizen Reminder...
Monday, October 26, 7pm, Paris selectmen meet. Call 743-2501 to be sure of place.
The last meeting was the quick meeting. (For such a quick meeting, it provided a lot of material for this blog: see the posts below, from "Back to Business as Usual," through "An Agenda for an Agenda.")
The meeting on the 26th will be 7 days from Election Day Nov. 3. This meeting will, perhaps, be more lengthy.
The last meeting was the quick meeting. (For such a quick meeting, it provided a lot of material for this blog: see the posts below, from "Back to Business as Usual," through "An Agenda for an Agenda.")
The meeting on the 26th will be 7 days from Election Day Nov. 3. This meeting will, perhaps, be more lengthy.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Back to Business as Usual
The following comment was posted on this site in "Overheard":
"This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." [Selectboard Ch. Ivey, The Paris Reporter, 8-04-08]
"This" = citizens' outrage at:
*a calculated firing;
*no plan for a "different direction";
*a private agenda, featuring decisions made behind closed doors;
*exclusion of some board members in critical decisions;
*the welfare of the whole town not being represented or considered.
"home" = where extremely concerned citizens have no intention whatsoever of staying.
And now, 12 weeks later:
"business as usual" = Read the following post.
"This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." [Selectboard Ch. Ivey, The Paris Reporter, 8-04-08]
"This" = citizens' outrage at:
*a calculated firing;
*no plan for a "different direction";
*a private agenda, featuring decisions made behind closed doors;
*exclusion of some board members in critical decisions;
*the welfare of the whole town not being represented or considered.
"home" = where extremely concerned citizens have no intention whatsoever of staying.
And now, 12 weeks later:
"business as usual" = Read the following post.
Slip of the Tongue? Careless Syntax?
Thursday 10-08-09, The Paris Reporter posted "A Calculated Distraction," re. the quickie meeting that got slipped under the door all so smoothly. In that article, referring to the process for looking for a new town manager, there was the observation that there appeared "a great need for haste."
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a dvd must get 1000 plus. In reviewing the dvd of that meeting taped by NPC-TV, just how much haste becomes clearer. Being able to see - and replay - body language and head turns, "fiddly" fingers and waving hands, one's attention is drawn to comments sometimes missed when just sitting in the audience.
Consider the following dialogue excerpted from 10-08-09 meeting at Paris Town Office:
Ch. Ivey: ......need to make a motion....
Sel. Ripley: Mike made a ...with his memo his desire to have someone on board prior to the new budget system warrants us to...ah...and as you have...we've started...we've put the ad out...we need to move forward in that process.
Ch. I: ...need to make a motion....
How do we want to do it?
Sel. Glover: You say you have put an ad out? or you're going to put an ad out?
Ch. I: [smooth segue] I dunno... [turns to interim town mgr.] Has that ad been put out?
Interim T. Mgr.: No.
Ch. I.: [casual glance back to Sel. G] I've spoken to 'm about it.
There's use of the past tense, here. Mr. R says "you have" "we've started" "we've put." Slip of the tongue? Careless syntax? Thinking out loud? What?
One outspoken selectman out of town for the week; the other asking did you or didn't you; and one deceived public.
Could there have been any prearrangement by anyone before this meeting?
Has there also been a candidate prearranged?
Why would anyone want that?
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a dvd must get 1000 plus. In reviewing the dvd of that meeting taped by NPC-TV, just how much haste becomes clearer. Being able to see - and replay - body language and head turns, "fiddly" fingers and waving hands, one's attention is drawn to comments sometimes missed when just sitting in the audience.
Consider the following dialogue excerpted from 10-08-09 meeting at Paris Town Office:
Ch. Ivey: ......need to make a motion....
Sel. Ripley: Mike made a ...with his memo his desire to have someone on board prior to the new budget system warrants us to...ah...and as you have...we've started...we've put the ad out...we need to move forward in that process.
Ch. I: ...need to make a motion....
How do we want to do it?
Sel. Glover: You say you have put an ad out? or you're going to put an ad out?
Ch. I: [smooth segue] I dunno... [turns to interim town mgr.] Has that ad been put out?
Interim T. Mgr.: No.
Ch. I.: [casual glance back to Sel. G] I've spoken to 'm about it.
There's use of the past tense, here. Mr. R says "you have" "we've started" "we've put." Slip of the tongue? Careless syntax? Thinking out loud? What?
One outspoken selectman out of town for the week; the other asking did you or didn't you; and one deceived public.
Could there have been any prearrangement by anyone before this meeting?
Has there also been a candidate prearranged?
Why would anyone want that?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Don't be left out!
Voters are the strength of a town - or city, or state, or nation. Although it doesn't always feel that way, we voters are what make democracy work. Why else would so much money and energy be packed into trying to influence us to support a certain cause or candidate?
Influencing and defining choices are what it's all about. Voters, in the best of situations, in whatever majority they can effect, have the power to shape the future; to promote ideas and to defeat ideas.
This November 3 Election Day, Paris voters have a set of choices at the state level, as well as a local question of law - a proposed Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine - that will effect how the town of Paris intends itself to be governed. This site will present information - in fact, has already posted at least two articles (1) , (2) - on the proposed ordinance and its implications for Paris.
Paris Voters:
If you are new to town, or have recently registered to vote in the last few weeks or months, take time to check at the town office to be sure your name is on the voter list.
Just filling out a voter registration card is not enough; names need to be transferred to the actual voter list that the ballot clerks work from on Election Day. If you know someone in the above category, urge them make certain their name is on the voter list.
Paris Voters:
You can vote early!
Although it is a critical provision for concerned citizens, the option to vote early is not just for people who will be out of town or who cannot get to the polls, for a variety of reasons, on Election Day.
Voting early can also provide voters more than just the one day to get to the polling place, and increase the chance that voting on a contested topic actually happens, by encouraging voters to "vote right now, before you forget!"
There is a specific procedure for keeping track of absentee ballots, just as there is for regular ballots. Up until the time the absentee and early-voter ballots are processed, the public may ask to see the list of voters who have taken out and returned ballots [Applications and Envelopes as Public Records, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §764 and Procedure for Issuing Absentee Ballots, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §753-B]. Editor's note: Busy clerks will need a little extra time to facilitate such a request.
No matter how our votes are cast, it is the voting process, itself, that matters. It is the voters who are intended to make the choices. We expect that, and we must always insist on that.
Influencing and defining choices are what it's all about. Voters, in the best of situations, in whatever majority they can effect, have the power to shape the future; to promote ideas and to defeat ideas.
This November 3 Election Day, Paris voters have a set of choices at the state level, as well as a local question of law - a proposed Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine - that will effect how the town of Paris intends itself to be governed. This site will present information - in fact, has already posted at least two articles (1) , (2) - on the proposed ordinance and its implications for Paris.
Paris Voters:
If you are new to town, or have recently registered to vote in the last few weeks or months, take time to check at the town office to be sure your name is on the voter list.
Just filling out a voter registration card is not enough; names need to be transferred to the actual voter list that the ballot clerks work from on Election Day. If you know someone in the above category, urge them make certain their name is on the voter list.
Paris Voters:
You can vote early!
Although it is a critical provision for concerned citizens, the option to vote early is not just for people who will be out of town or who cannot get to the polls, for a variety of reasons, on Election Day.
Voting early can also provide voters more than just the one day to get to the polling place, and increase the chance that voting on a contested topic actually happens, by encouraging voters to "vote right now, before you forget!"
There is a specific procedure for keeping track of absentee ballots, just as there is for regular ballots. Up until the time the absentee and early-voter ballots are processed, the public may ask to see the list of voters who have taken out and returned ballots [Applications and Envelopes as Public Records, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §764 and Procedure for Issuing Absentee Ballots, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §753-B]. Editor's note: Busy clerks will need a little extra time to facilitate such a request.
No matter how our votes are cast, it is the voting process, itself, that matters. It is the voters who are intended to make the choices. We expect that, and we must always insist on that.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Why the Rush, Gentlemen?
On Thursday 10-08-09 Vice Chairman of Paris Selectboard Ripley set out procedure for going out to find a new full time town manager for Paris. It seems Interim Thorne will be retiring - from Paris - 2-2010.
Consider: the Town of Paris is in a "situation" that makes hiring a manager in the middle of a lawsuit contesting the legality of the termination of an existing contract rife with possibilities for creating another suit by signing a contract with a new manager before finishing with the current "situation."
What is the wisdom in signing up a long term manager if that individual's position could possibly become null and void by a court ruling against the town in a suit as mentioned above?
Consider: Why the rush? What is to be gained? What could be something that a back might need to be covered against? Is there something that the public at large is not privy to?
It is indeed true that there is no requirement in municipal law for the way a town manager position should be advertised, except, of course the federal requirement for equal opportunity employment that simply makes it plain there can be no discrimination. But there is solid business practice, and there is common sense.
Consider this nebulous "different direction" that none of the "firing three" selectmen has ever felt like defining - since the instant birth of that term on the night of "the firing" 4 months ago. No explanation, despite the fact that firing has changed - and is threatening - the financial landscape of our town. How much of this lickety-split search procedure will focus on an understanding of, better yet, an unspoken agreement with, this different direction?
Consider the pieces missing from Selectman Ripley's procedure (above) for finding a new manager. The qualifications for manager should be, specifically....what? Or, perhaps, not what?
Consider: what was so unacceptable in the former town manager's job performance that she had to be fired the very minute Mr. R got on board - with nary a word since from anyone on that board of selectmen about why. Whatever that undefined quality was that got Sharon Jackson fired, how do the three plan to insure that quality will never again be found inside the Paris town manager's office? Will that plan also be a secret from the public?
Exactly how many days do you want this full time manager, Mr. R? Are we talking a 32 hour work week? More? Less? When this individual gets pulled out of the proverbial hat, what salary will be offered? You have that all worked out, do you, with the figures in the budget? The cash flow is in complete control....you say?
And the reason you needed to launch this plan at a special meeting, rather than your regularly scheduled selectmen's meeting? You were hoping the voters in which town might not notice....?
Consider: the Town of Paris is in a "situation" that makes hiring a manager in the middle of a lawsuit contesting the legality of the termination of an existing contract rife with possibilities for creating another suit by signing a contract with a new manager before finishing with the current "situation."
What is the wisdom in signing up a long term manager if that individual's position could possibly become null and void by a court ruling against the town in a suit as mentioned above?
Consider: Why the rush? What is to be gained? What could be something that a back might need to be covered against? Is there something that the public at large is not privy to?
It is indeed true that there is no requirement in municipal law for the way a town manager position should be advertised, except, of course the federal requirement for equal opportunity employment that simply makes it plain there can be no discrimination. But there is solid business practice, and there is common sense.
Consider this nebulous "different direction" that none of the "firing three" selectmen has ever felt like defining - since the instant birth of that term on the night of "the firing" 4 months ago. No explanation, despite the fact that firing has changed - and is threatening - the financial landscape of our town. How much of this lickety-split search procedure will focus on an understanding of, better yet, an unspoken agreement with, this different direction?
Consider the pieces missing from Selectman Ripley's procedure (above) for finding a new manager. The qualifications for manager should be, specifically....what? Or, perhaps, not what?
Consider: what was so unacceptable in the former town manager's job performance that she had to be fired the very minute Mr. R got on board - with nary a word since from anyone on that board of selectmen about why. Whatever that undefined quality was that got Sharon Jackson fired, how do the three plan to insure that quality will never again be found inside the Paris town manager's office? Will that plan also be a secret from the public?
Exactly how many days do you want this full time manager, Mr. R? Are we talking a 32 hour work week? More? Less? When this individual gets pulled out of the proverbial hat, what salary will be offered? You have that all worked out, do you, with the figures in the budget? The cash flow is in complete control....you say?
And the reason you needed to launch this plan at a special meeting, rather than your regularly scheduled selectmen's meeting? You were hoping the voters in which town might not notice....?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Calculated Distraction
"... waiver the bylaws for this one time, and one time only" - Vice Chair Ripley.
[Town of Paris, Selectmen's bylaws, Section 9: "These bylaws can be waived on any occasion by majority vote of the Board...."]
Convenient. That way a selectman, who knows and follows the bylaws, can be "trapped by his own words" by opposing a vote brought about by tricky maneuvering. The situation will be calculated to look like the other selectmen have an earnest desire to do "the right thing," but the opposing selectman does not.
Background:
Because there are some decisions that the powers that be want to make but know will not be popular, this "special meeting" was arranged to happen while one critical and straightforward selectman was known to be out of town, and the second, equally straightforward and tenacious selectman was not in on the plan, even though he was in town and, in the end, was notified. Never mind the public. It has been said the interim town manager didn't even know.
To muddy the waters even further, the agenda for a special meeting by definition can include - and do business on - only those items as advertised.
So, here's a good plan to insure the public is distracted from the purpose of the questionable meeting: get the sympathy of the audience, by finding a real need that must be met - such as approval of a payroll warrant ( never mind that could be done next week, as originally planned). Next, manage for the straightforward and tenacious selectman, the sole dissenting voter on the board attending tonight, to be made to look as bad as possible to the audience, because he will most certainly not vote for things that are done for the wrong reason, even if it makes him look bad.
4:50 pm Thursday
poorly advertised quickly thought up "special" meeting.
Even so: 41 Paris voters, 2 reporters, seated in town office,
front table vacant.
Chair strolls in, notes crowd, scowls more than usual,
paces near table, flips open phone, scowls, dials.
Moments later police chief shows up
Stands amiably by door.
Selectman 1 arrives
NPC-TV cameraman sets up.
Enter Interim Town Mgr, 2,3,4 selectmen.
Meeting starts, progresses...
Chairman I: Item 3 - approval of warrant item....
Selectman G: Point of order!
...had a regularly scheduled meeting next week...
...notice I received specified 2 items, not 3rd item.
...bylaws say "No business may be conducted that isn't...."
Ch. I: We didn't approve a scheduled meeting for next week
...an oversight on all our parts...
Reporter: We've ["Advertiser Democrat"] been advised by the town clerk that there was a meeting next Tuesday.
Ch. I: ...that's not my conversation I had with her....
interruption: Selectman R: I move we pay warrants....
Sel. G: Point of order - You know the rules, and you still...
Sel. R: I know what you're doing, Ray..you're..you're raising a point of order....
[back and forth and back and forth]
Sel. R: Help me out here; what do we need to do to be able to approve these warrants?
Sel. G: That's for you to do! I'm not going to do your work for you.
Sel. R: motion...waiver the bylaws for this one time and one time only, that we may add this item to the agenda.
[Vote takes place and passes, Selectman G stands his ground.]
Starting the process
Looking for a new town manager, M.Thorne will retire in February.
Discussion hovers around advertising.
And, it would appear, a great need for haste.
Ch. I: Do we have any ads out yet?
Sel. G: ...recommend MMA listing...I hope you are looking for a qualified candidate?
Ch. I: [re. "you" are looking]You're amongst us, Ray, so it's not we, it's you, too, you're on the board of selectmen
Sel. G: I know that's my desire [re. the qualified candidate] but I'm not sure about your's.
Ch. I: But we...I..didn't ask for your opinion, either, so...
The Crowd: ooooooooooo....
Ch. I: Quiet please
Sel. R: I make a motion that we put an ad process together and collect résumés and on Fridays, weekly, we review the ones that have come in - and any of us - Raymond, Lloyd, Glen, you, see anything you like then we schedule an interview for the following week. That's a motion.
Discussion continues, unravels,
one or two cogent thoughts emerge,
crowd is mesmerized.
Sel. R: [repeating motion] We advertise, we collect résumés, peruse them, and if anybody sees anything they like, set up an interview with..the following week..and we'll do that until such time as we....[sentence left unfinished]
[The reader will note that there was no mention of hiring, salary, timeline, what kind of qualifications, planet of origin, animal, vegetable or mineral; just a great deal of LET'S GET THIS DONE. ASAP.]
Item Five.
Sel. R: I'm reading this motion exactly from what Geoffrey Hole gave us.
Ch. I: To do?
Sel. R: Yes. [reads from paper] I move that we ratify the action taken at our June 22, 2009 meeting to terminate the manager's contract, without cause.
Selectmen Y.: Second!
Ch. I: Discussion?
Sel. G: Yes! I just want it to be known that I was opposed to the original action, and I'm opposed to this action, and I am voting No.
Ch. I: Okay.
[trap: ready]
Sel. R: So, you're going to go against what the town attorney recommends us to do?
[trap: set]
Sel.G: That's correct.
[gotcha]
Sel. R: Okay. I..just make sure we have that as a ...have that.. a.. noted in the minutes that he's going against what the town attorney recommended.
Ch. I: All in favor?
Vote was passed, 3-1
Selectman G stood his ground.
The end.
[Readers are reminded that, on this site in recent posts, there has been discussion of, and links to, further information on "ratifying."]
[Town of Paris, Selectmen's bylaws, Section 9: "These bylaws can be waived on any occasion by majority vote of the Board...."]
Convenient. That way a selectman, who knows and follows the bylaws, can be "trapped by his own words" by opposing a vote brought about by tricky maneuvering. The situation will be calculated to look like the other selectmen have an earnest desire to do "the right thing," but the opposing selectman does not.
Background:
Because there are some decisions that the powers that be want to make but know will not be popular, this "special meeting" was arranged to happen while one critical and straightforward selectman was known to be out of town, and the second, equally straightforward and tenacious selectman was not in on the plan, even though he was in town and, in the end, was notified. Never mind the public. It has been said the interim town manager didn't even know.
To muddy the waters even further, the agenda for a special meeting by definition can include - and do business on - only those items as advertised.
So, here's a good plan to insure the public is distracted from the purpose of the questionable meeting: get the sympathy of the audience, by finding a real need that must be met - such as approval of a payroll warrant ( never mind that could be done next week, as originally planned). Next, manage for the straightforward and tenacious selectman, the sole dissenting voter on the board attending tonight, to be made to look as bad as possible to the audience, because he will most certainly not vote for things that are done for the wrong reason, even if it makes him look bad.
4:50 pm Thursday
poorly advertised quickly thought up "special" meeting.
Even so: 41 Paris voters, 2 reporters, seated in town office,
front table vacant.
Chair strolls in, notes crowd, scowls more than usual,
paces near table, flips open phone, scowls, dials.
Moments later police chief shows up
Stands amiably by door.
Selectman 1 arrives
NPC-TV cameraman sets up.
Enter Interim Town Mgr, 2,3,4 selectmen.
Meeting starts, progresses...
Chairman I: Item 3 - approval of warrant item....
Selectman G: Point of order!
...had a regularly scheduled meeting next week...
...notice I received specified 2 items, not 3rd item.
...bylaws say "No business may be conducted that isn't...."
Ch. I: We didn't approve a scheduled meeting for next week
...an oversight on all our parts...
Reporter: We've ["Advertiser Democrat"] been advised by the town clerk that there was a meeting next Tuesday.
Ch. I: ...that's not my conversation I had with her....
interruption: Selectman R: I move we pay warrants....
Sel. G: Point of order - You know the rules, and you still...
Sel. R: I know what you're doing, Ray..you're..you're raising a point of order....
[back and forth and back and forth]
Sel. R: Help me out here; what do we need to do to be able to approve these warrants?
Sel. G: That's for you to do! I'm not going to do your work for you.
Sel. R: motion...waiver the bylaws for this one time and one time only, that we may add this item to the agenda.
[Vote takes place and passes, Selectman G stands his ground.]
Starting the process
Looking for a new town manager, M.Thorne will retire in February.
Discussion hovers around advertising.
And, it would appear, a great need for haste.
Ch. I: Do we have any ads out yet?
Sel. G: ...recommend MMA listing...I hope you are looking for a qualified candidate?
Ch. I: [re. "you" are looking]You're amongst us, Ray, so it's not we, it's you, too, you're on the board of selectmen
Sel. G: I know that's my desire [re. the qualified candidate] but I'm not sure about your's.
Ch. I: But we...I..didn't ask for your opinion, either, so...
The Crowd: ooooooooooo....
Ch. I: Quiet please
Sel. R: I make a motion that we put an ad process together and collect résumés and on Fridays, weekly, we review the ones that have come in - and any of us - Raymond, Lloyd, Glen, you, see anything you like then we schedule an interview for the following week. That's a motion.
Discussion continues, unravels,
one or two cogent thoughts emerge,
crowd is mesmerized.
Sel. R: [repeating motion] We advertise, we collect résumés, peruse them, and if anybody sees anything they like, set up an interview with..the following week..and we'll do that until such time as we....[sentence left unfinished]
[The reader will note that there was no mention of hiring, salary, timeline, what kind of qualifications, planet of origin, animal, vegetable or mineral; just a great deal of LET'S GET THIS DONE. ASAP.]
Item Five.
Sel. R: I'm reading this motion exactly from what Geoffrey Hole gave us.
Ch. I: To do?
Sel. R: Yes. [reads from paper] I move that we ratify the action taken at our June 22, 2009 meeting to terminate the manager's contract, without cause.
Selectmen Y.: Second!
Ch. I: Discussion?
Sel. G: Yes! I just want it to be known that I was opposed to the original action, and I'm opposed to this action, and I am voting No.
Ch. I: Okay.
[trap: ready]
Sel. R: So, you're going to go against what the town attorney recommends us to do?
[trap: set]
Sel.G: That's correct.
[gotcha]
Sel. R: Okay. I..just make sure we have that as a ...have that.. a.. noted in the minutes that he's going against what the town attorney recommended.
Ch. I: All in favor?
Vote was passed, 3-1
Selectman G stood his ground.
The end.
[Readers are reminded that, on this site in recent posts, there has been discussion of, and links to, further information on "ratifying."]
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Importance of Why
The scrambling to scrape together a special selectmen's meeting at the Paris Town Office before everyone discovers it's happening - including one selectman out of town for the week- reminds one of the importance of always being ready to ask, "why?"
There are guidelines, of course, to how public bodies are intended to publicize meetings. Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Sec. 406 Public notice, states "notice shall be given in ample time to allow public attendance..."; the Maine Municipal Officer's Manual, Ch.3 Executive Functions of the Municipal Officers, p.26 mentions the public being given adequate notice, and further gives a definition for what constitutes a "special" or "emergency" meeting; The Bylaws of The Board of Municipal Officers of the Town of Paris, Maine, Sec. 4 Meetings, pp. 2-3 refers to special meetings, and "notice thereof ... to each member of the Board and to the local media at least 48 hours in advance..."
Questions: Ch. 3, MMA Municipal Officer's Manual, p.26 (see above), mentions "Generally, business that can not be postponed are subjects of special/emergency meetings." There is nothing in the 2 items on Thursday's agenda that could not be postponed until the next regularly scheduled selectman's meeting....
Why the urgency? What needs to be accomplished in front of the smallest audience possible? And that would be because.....?
Consider the foot-dragging and roadblock-throwing to prevent a recall ordinance from being even being put on a ballot. A recall ordinance is simply a tool, part of many Maine towns' arsenal of municipal tools; it is for worst-case-scenario use by voters who have no other way to demand accountability from their elected officials.
Why the fear of such an ordinance? Is there a general mistrust of voters in general? Or perhaps of the intelligence of the voters? Is it a desire to control - to shape - the thinking of constituents to a private agenda? Is there worry that "I might be the one being recalled if this goes through?"
As reflected in 7-09 and 8-09 bills from Bernstein and Shur, and judging from various responses to voters' questions for selectmen at meetings, conversations with the town attorney are happening and the town is being billed for them, but not all selectmen are privy to these communications - they are only given information second hand, if at all. This raises a question of whether the best interests of the entire town are being served.
Why is there a picture emerging of 2 selectmen who have an agenda that might not be in the best interests of the entire town? Are there things that cannot be shared up front with all selectmen, and handled openly as proper business at a meeting with the public? Are there things that need to be hidden because they might not go down well with the voters?
Voter questions are not encouraged at public meetings, especially if a voter challenges or refuses to accept an answer of non-information. Often-frustrated voters have been shouted at: "Sit down!" "You're done!" "Do you want to go home?" "I'll have you removed!" "I'm only going to tell you this one time...."
Why would an individual running a meeting, never mind a town, think that refusing to give a straight answer and bullying the question-asker would stop the public from finding out what is necessary to be found out? Is there something the public should not know? Do they not realize that their treatment of the voters makes it look like there is somethng to hide? Will this treatment stop the question-askers? (What do you think....)
There are guidelines, of course, to how public bodies are intended to publicize meetings. Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Sec. 406 Public notice, states "notice shall be given in ample time to allow public attendance..."; the Maine Municipal Officer's Manual, Ch.3 Executive Functions of the Municipal Officers, p.26 mentions the public being given adequate notice, and further gives a definition for what constitutes a "special" or "emergency" meeting; The Bylaws of The Board of Municipal Officers of the Town of Paris, Maine, Sec. 4 Meetings, pp. 2-3 refers to special meetings, and "notice thereof ... to each member of the Board and to the local media at least 48 hours in advance..."
Questions: Ch. 3, MMA Municipal Officer's Manual, p.26 (see above), mentions "Generally, business that can not be postponed are subjects of special/emergency meetings." There is nothing in the 2 items on Thursday's agenda that could not be postponed until the next regularly scheduled selectman's meeting....
Why the urgency? What needs to be accomplished in front of the smallest audience possible? And that would be because.....?
Consider the foot-dragging and roadblock-throwing to prevent a recall ordinance from being even being put on a ballot. A recall ordinance is simply a tool, part of many Maine towns' arsenal of municipal tools; it is for worst-case-scenario use by voters who have no other way to demand accountability from their elected officials.
Why the fear of such an ordinance? Is there a general mistrust of voters in general? Or perhaps of the intelligence of the voters? Is it a desire to control - to shape - the thinking of constituents to a private agenda? Is there worry that "I might be the one being recalled if this goes through?"
As reflected in 7-09 and 8-09 bills from Bernstein and Shur, and judging from various responses to voters' questions for selectmen at meetings, conversations with the town attorney are happening and the town is being billed for them, but not all selectmen are privy to these communications - they are only given information second hand, if at all. This raises a question of whether the best interests of the entire town are being served.
Why is there a picture emerging of 2 selectmen who have an agenda that might not be in the best interests of the entire town? Are there things that cannot be shared up front with all selectmen, and handled openly as proper business at a meeting with the public? Are there things that need to be hidden because they might not go down well with the voters?
Voter questions are not encouraged at public meetings, especially if a voter challenges or refuses to accept an answer of non-information. Often-frustrated voters have been shouted at: "Sit down!" "You're done!" "Do you want to go home?" "I'll have you removed!" "I'm only going to tell you this one time...."
Why would an individual running a meeting, never mind a town, think that refusing to give a straight answer and bullying the question-asker would stop the public from finding out what is necessary to be found out? Is there something the public should not know? Do they not realize that their treatment of the voters makes it look like there is somethng to hide? Will this treatment stop the question-askers? (What do you think....)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Agenda for an Agenda
To the Paris voters who can get to the lickety-split surprise selectmen meeting 10-08-09 at 5 p.m. (voters who will probably have to stand outside because there is not going to be nearly enough room for all the folks who are realizing more and more what a certain 3 selectmen are up to and are sick and tired of it): be aware that there are only 5 items on the agenda.
It is immediately apparent that there is no item for citizen comments... What? You're shocked?
Most likely citizens were not anticipated. Or hoped for. Probably not even the interim town manager knew ahead of time - he hasn't been around much at the office this week. Certainly two selectmen didn't - one heard after the ad was called in to local papers, and the other is out of town - for the week. Tricky, that. Cards work better in one's favor if they're stacked, after all.
Three of the five agenda items are Call to Order; Pledge of Allegiance; and Adjourn. Space for 2 more...and they're meaty: #3. Discussion and action on hiring a new Town Manager. Best to do this when no one is looking. Saves all those pesky questions. Questions that will most certainly be addresseed on this site.
And #4. Ratification of the June 22nd vote to terminate Sharon Jackson's contract. According to the legal dictionary at Refdesk.com (an online reference site that includes a variety of specific sources), ratification is "The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed." Further, "The ratification of a lawful contract has a retroactive effect, and binds the principal from its date...the ratification is equivalent to an original authority."
The operative word in the definition above is "lawful".
No amount of ratifying or anything else can make an illegal act legal. And if the 3-2 vote to terminate former Mgr. Jackson's contract on 6-22-09 was legal, why go to all the trouble of ratifying it?
Perhaps that falls into the category that Selectman Ripley likes to call "one lawyer's opinion?" Especially if it's the opinion you're looking for.
It's not easy to know exactly how the Town of Paris is being advised by Atty. Hole, because most conversations have been limited to Ivey, Ripley, and sometimes Thorne. In addition, it's hard to be sure that Atty. Hole is getting the full response of the entire board, or even all of the facts. (See previous sentence.)
So, just to play devil's advocate, if Mr. Ripley's "one lawyer" happened to be misinformed, and the ratification [which is binding] locks the town into a new date of termination, 10-08-09, instead of 6-22-09, as the 3 original initiators of the termination appear to be hoping, the town will be liable for an additional $75 per week back to July 1; benefits; back pay that's already in arrears from the original settlement; insurance; probably pretty close to $30,000 more.
The Town of Paris is not likely to know for several months just how much this action - indeed, the entire raft of actions, sailing off into the New Direction - is going to cost the taxpayers. Or how long it will take us to pay it off.
[FYI in this legal dispute, barring any intervening settlement agreement: discovery (each side's lawyer looking at the other side's evidence) and depositions (questioning of each individual separately by the other side's lawyer) are to be done by mid-February 2010, and if necessary, trial will occur sometime after April 2010.]
Meeting on Thursday looks to be pretty short. Not much discussion needed; anyway, most certainly not from us, the bill payers. Clearly the decisive members of our board of selectmen have already made up their decisive minds.
Come to watch. And listen. They're not likely to let citizens speak.
5 PM Thursday 10-08-09, town office. Don't be discouraged if some of us have to stand in the parking lot. The decisive members of our board are still not getting that we just won't go away; that this town belongs to All Of Us.
It is immediately apparent that there is no item for citizen comments... What? You're shocked?
Most likely citizens were not anticipated. Or hoped for. Probably not even the interim town manager knew ahead of time - he hasn't been around much at the office this week. Certainly two selectmen didn't - one heard after the ad was called in to local papers, and the other is out of town - for the week. Tricky, that. Cards work better in one's favor if they're stacked, after all.
Three of the five agenda items are Call to Order; Pledge of Allegiance; and Adjourn. Space for 2 more...and they're meaty: #3. Discussion and action on hiring a new Town Manager. Best to do this when no one is looking. Saves all those pesky questions. Questions that will most certainly be addresseed on this site.
And #4. Ratification of the June 22nd vote to terminate Sharon Jackson's contract. According to the legal dictionary at Refdesk.com (an online reference site that includes a variety of specific sources), ratification is "The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed." Further, "The ratification of a lawful contract has a retroactive effect, and binds the principal from its date...the ratification is equivalent to an original authority."
The operative word in the definition above is "lawful".
No amount of ratifying or anything else can make an illegal act legal. And if the 3-2 vote to terminate former Mgr. Jackson's contract on 6-22-09 was legal, why go to all the trouble of ratifying it?
Perhaps that falls into the category that Selectman Ripley likes to call "one lawyer's opinion?" Especially if it's the opinion you're looking for.
It's not easy to know exactly how the Town of Paris is being advised by Atty. Hole, because most conversations have been limited to Ivey, Ripley, and sometimes Thorne. In addition, it's hard to be sure that Atty. Hole is getting the full response of the entire board, or even all of the facts. (See previous sentence.)
So, just to play devil's advocate, if Mr. Ripley's "one lawyer" happened to be misinformed, and the ratification [which is binding] locks the town into a new date of termination, 10-08-09, instead of 6-22-09, as the 3 original initiators of the termination appear to be hoping, the town will be liable for an additional $75 per week back to July 1; benefits; back pay that's already in arrears from the original settlement; insurance; probably pretty close to $30,000 more.
The Town of Paris is not likely to know for several months just how much this action - indeed, the entire raft of actions, sailing off into the New Direction - is going to cost the taxpayers. Or how long it will take us to pay it off.
[FYI in this legal dispute, barring any intervening settlement agreement: discovery (each side's lawyer looking at the other side's evidence) and depositions (questioning of each individual separately by the other side's lawyer) are to be done by mid-February 2010, and if necessary, trial will occur sometime after April 2010.]
Meeting on Thursday looks to be pretty short. Not much discussion needed; anyway, most certainly not from us, the bill payers. Clearly the decisive members of our board of selectmen have already made up their decisive minds.
Come to watch. And listen. They're not likely to let citizens speak.
5 PM Thursday 10-08-09, town office. Don't be discouraged if some of us have to stand in the parking lot. The decisive members of our board are still not getting that we just won't go away; that this town belongs to All Of Us.
Citizen Alert!!!
A special meeting of Paris Selectmen has been called for Thursday, October 8. Reported agenda is to include hiring a new town manager, and something about a re-firing of former Town Manager Sharon Jackson.
An interesting aside is that Selectman Skip Herrick had planned to be, and is, in Georgia all of this week. Fewer around the head table, it would seem....
PLEASE COME IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN - AND BRING A FRIEND.
THURSDAY, 5 PM , PARIS TOWN OFFICE.
An interesting aside is that Selectman Skip Herrick had planned to be, and is, in Georgia all of this week. Fewer around the head table, it would seem....
PLEASE COME IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN - AND BRING A FRIEND.
THURSDAY, 5 PM , PARIS TOWN OFFICE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)