Interim Mgr. Mike Thorne, in Advertiser Democrat, 8-27-09, p.3A: "expects the [9-14-09] meeting will return to the town office after two sessions at the larger meeting hall in the fire station."
And this would be because...
... citizens are losing interest in trying to discover who's running the town?
.... the number of citizens turning out for selectmen meetings is dwindling?
....no Paris voter has any interest in hearing what Town Attorney Geoff Hole will have to say - in executive session or otherwise - when he's brought up from Portland, again, and paid by the hour with town money?
....no Paris voter is interested, one bit, in hearing what the town's tax assessor John Brushwein has to say on issues that effect the town of Paris?
A citizen approached Mgr. Thorne Monday 8-31-09 around 12:30 pm, and mentioned the concern that the town office was too small to contain the predicted numbers of citizens interested in the 9-14-09 meeting. The citizen mentioned that it was known that the fire station was already booked, so the suggestion was made to check possible meeting space at the high school .
"Yes. I will be talking with the selectmen," said Thorne. "I will be meeting with them this afternoon." Funny - one selectman the citizen spoke with about 5 minutes later had not heard of the meeting. Wonder who Thorne will be meeting with....
Who's running this town?
CALL PARIS TOWN OFFICE 743-2501;
REQUEST A BIGGER SPACE BE FOUND TO HOUSE THE 9-14-09 SELECTMEN'S MEETING;
SUGGEST THE HIGH SCHOOL, FOR STARTERS;
URGE THEM TO CALL ABOUT SPACE NOW.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Overheard...
"All I ask for is a little courtesy...." Guess who said this at the meeting last Monday night?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Theater of the Absurd
We came together Monday evening, 65 or so of us, at the Fire Station, for a hearing on a proposed recall ordinance for the town of Paris. And we found... most interesting theater.
Any comments?
football game - no V Chairman
a few ordinance comments
Could 5 selectmen be recalled all at once - why, this could shut down the town...
With 5 individual petitions, yes, 5 selectmen could theoretically be headed toward a special recall election. That would certainly say a lot about the need for reform in our town......
[And all the registered voters in the Town of Paris who have to vote in a recall election would most certainly vote to shut down the town because they don't know any better.....]
mumbling and shuffling
I guess I should read this letter from the lawyer..."A recall election..."
Wait - Stop - this letter doesn't speak to what we voted to ask
sputter, mutter...We just got the letter today
Who sent the questions this letter gives answers to
nobody
This letter came from the lawyer out of the air?
nothing
Who sent this letter?
The Interim manager. Yes, it was him. (Int. Mgr. shakes head "No")
Perhaps it was the V. Ch. Yes it was him.
V Ch at football - out of reach...
We're finished here. Now we....
Extraneous comments and run-on sentences excluded to preserve the readers' sanity. This all really happened. There are witnesses. Who could make this up?
Next morning (8-25-09) at the town office, under a closer and rather lengthy inspection, the following information was revealed: Town Clerk was able to provide a copy of the letter faxed from Town Attorney Geoff Hole, 2:06 pm 8-24-09, and with further pressing, managed to come up with the fax cover sheet sent to the lawyer 8:57 am 8-24-09 , minus any questions.
Int. Mgr. Thorne responded, with still more pressing, "The chairman of the board called me yesterday morning and asked me to fax a copy of the petitioned ordinance to the town attorney - so, that's what I did."
A little lying, a little dragging of feet (because who would want a recall ordinance if it meant someone might actually get petitioned for a recall election?), some smoke and mirrors. Quite interesting theater. Not much about recall ordinances...
Any comments?
football game - no V Chairman
a few ordinance comments
Could 5 selectmen be recalled all at once - why, this could shut down the town...
With 5 individual petitions, yes, 5 selectmen could theoretically be headed toward a special recall election. That would certainly say a lot about the need for reform in our town......
[And all the registered voters in the Town of Paris who have to vote in a recall election would most certainly vote to shut down the town because they don't know any better.....]
mumbling and shuffling
I guess I should read this letter from the lawyer..."A recall election..."
Wait - Stop - this letter doesn't speak to what we voted to ask
sputter, mutter...We just got the letter today
Who sent the questions this letter gives answers to
nobody
This letter came from the lawyer out of the air?
nothing
Who sent this letter?
The Interim manager. Yes, it was him. (Int. Mgr. shakes head "No")
Perhaps it was the V. Ch. Yes it was him.
V Ch at football - out of reach...
We're finished here. Now we....
Extraneous comments and run-on sentences excluded to preserve the readers' sanity. This all really happened. There are witnesses. Who could make this up?
Next morning (8-25-09) at the town office, under a closer and rather lengthy inspection, the following information was revealed: Town Clerk was able to provide a copy of the letter faxed from Town Attorney Geoff Hole, 2:06 pm 8-24-09, and with further pressing, managed to come up with the fax cover sheet sent to the lawyer 8:57 am 8-24-09 , minus any questions.
Int. Mgr. Thorne responded, with still more pressing, "The chairman of the board called me yesterday morning and asked me to fax a copy of the petitioned ordinance to the town attorney - so, that's what I did."
A little lying, a little dragging of feet (because who would want a recall ordinance if it meant someone might actually get petitioned for a recall election?), some smoke and mirrors. Quite interesting theater. Not much about recall ordinances...
The truth, Paris? There's not enough money.
New direction coming up for Paris, here. Many voters are concerned about the state of our finances. There seems to be a standard glib response from the chairman, the vice chairman, the interim town manager, that the town has plenty of money - all set - not to worry.
Has anyone even spoken with the Finance Clerk and Appointed Treasurer Sharon Gendreau? She is the person who knows.
Figures on paper do not give the same look into the wallet of the town as actually looking into the wallet of the town. The Paris town budget was carefully prepared, and accepted by voters at the 6-13-09 Town Meeting. The 2007/2008 Town Report (copies available at the Town Office if needed) includes several pages of audit charts, to show the different ways of breaking down the cash flow. Check them out.
But these are projections, pictures of the money. All of these graphs and numbers do not tell what is in the pot of money today. That is a very different story. Go and ask the Finance Clerk about that.
And then, there are any number of limitations (page 76 and page 77, Town Report 2007/2008) on how some of the money can be used. Legally. Flexibility and total elasticity are not the same thing.
There is serious cause to worry. Do not be reassured. There is no $800,000 available for use between now and November. There is some money set aside for a rainy day - but not for rain that lasts forever. Good planning in the past can be wiped out by poor judgment in the present.
Ask more questions. Look deeper. Ask for information from people who know, not who want you to know what they want you to know.
There will be more information coming from concerned voters, because there are several people already looking deeper.
Has anyone even spoken with the Finance Clerk and Appointed Treasurer Sharon Gendreau? She is the person who knows.
Figures on paper do not give the same look into the wallet of the town as actually looking into the wallet of the town. The Paris town budget was carefully prepared, and accepted by voters at the 6-13-09 Town Meeting. The 2007/2008 Town Report (copies available at the Town Office if needed) includes several pages of audit charts, to show the different ways of breaking down the cash flow. Check them out.
But these are projections, pictures of the money. All of these graphs and numbers do not tell what is in the pot of money today. That is a very different story. Go and ask the Finance Clerk about that.
And then, there are any number of limitations (page 76 and page 77, Town Report 2007/2008) on how some of the money can be used. Legally. Flexibility and total elasticity are not the same thing.
There is serious cause to worry. Do not be reassured. There is no $800,000 available for use between now and November. There is some money set aside for a rainy day - but not for rain that lasts forever. Good planning in the past can be wiped out by poor judgment in the present.
Ask more questions. Look deeper. Ask for information from people who know, not who want you to know what they want you to know.
There will be more information coming from concerned voters, because there are several people already looking deeper.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Attention!
Public Hearing on proposed Town of Paris Recall Ordinance
Monday, 8-24-09, 6:30 pm, Fire Station
Stay for the selectmen's meeting following - see if you can tell who's running the town.
Monday, 8-24-09, 6:30 pm, Fire Station
Stay for the selectmen's meeting following - see if you can tell who's running the town.
When Is a Recall Not a Recall?
Answer: When it's a regular municipal election.
"'We already have a process in place to recall people every year over a loss of faith,' he [Troy Ripley]said. 'It happens every three years.'" Advertiser Democrat 7-30-09 p.5A
When a term of office for an elected official is up, he or she may decide whether to run again, and if the choice is to run, may or may not be re-elected. It would be a straight forward decision of all the registered voters at election time, right?
But what if the behavior and decisions of an elected official give voters second thoughts before the official's term of office is up? Once a recall ordinance is in place in a town (30-A, M.R.S.A., Section 2602), a petition can be filed, a special "recall election" set up, and, once again, just as in the previous paragraph, it is a straight forward decision of all the registered voters, "yes" or "no."
"'We already have a process in place to recall people every year over a loss of faith,' he [Troy Ripley]said. 'It happens every three years.'" Advertiser Democrat 7-30-09 p.5A
When a term of office for an elected official is up, he or she may decide whether to run again, and if the choice is to run, may or may not be re-elected. It would be a straight forward decision of all the registered voters at election time, right?
But what if the behavior and decisions of an elected official give voters second thoughts before the official's term of office is up? Once a recall ordinance is in place in a town (30-A, M.R.S.A., Section 2602), a petition can be filed, a special "recall election" set up, and, once again, just as in the previous paragraph, it is a straight forward decision of all the registered voters, "yes" or "no."
Why would I want such a thing?
The petition filed to ask for a recall election would state the reason for recall of a particular elected official, but not the ordinance itself, because reasons that petitioners would have to remove an official are likely to be case-specific.
If the language of the ordinance itself contained specific reasons for recall of an elected official, petitioners would be limited to recalling elected officials they had lost confidence in only for the reasons stated in the ordinance.
This happened in the Maine town of Harpswell. Their original recall ordinance had 5 specific reasons including US/ME felony conviction; absences greater than allowed; 2 or more violations of Freedom of Access Act. Because of general dissatisfaction among the voters, the town redrafted the ordinance, reducing the reasons to 4. The town administrator reports there is still the general feeling that it is nearly impossible to recall an elected official.
In the Maine town of Andover, the opposite happened. 10% of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election (as Paris draft says) petitioned - twice - to remove an elected official, with no stated reason in the ordinance, but stated reasons in the petition itself. However, both times, 6 months apart, the recall elections returned the official to her seat because the number of votes needed to recall her did not materialize.
So, give thought to the 7-30 Advertiser Democrat's quoting Troy Ripley, who said he would fight the recall ordinance draft until it said what he wanted, "namely, enumeration of specific reasons for removal. "
Shouldn't an elected official hope to be on good enough terms with the voters of the entire town to be able to stand on his/her own record?
If the language of the ordinance itself contained specific reasons for recall of an elected official, petitioners would be limited to recalling elected officials they had lost confidence in only for the reasons stated in the ordinance.
This happened in the Maine town of Harpswell. Their original recall ordinance had 5 specific reasons including US/ME felony conviction; absences greater than allowed; 2 or more violations of Freedom of Access Act. Because of general dissatisfaction among the voters, the town redrafted the ordinance, reducing the reasons to 4. The town administrator reports there is still the general feeling that it is nearly impossible to recall an elected official.
In the Maine town of Andover, the opposite happened. 10% of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election (as Paris draft says) petitioned - twice - to remove an elected official, with no stated reason in the ordinance, but stated reasons in the petition itself. However, both times, 6 months apart, the recall elections returned the official to her seat because the number of votes needed to recall her did not materialize.
So, give thought to the 7-30 Advertiser Democrat's quoting Troy Ripley, who said he would fight the recall ordinance draft until it said what he wanted, "namely, enumeration of specific reasons for removal. "
Shouldn't an elected official hope to be on good enough terms with the voters of the entire town to be able to stand on his/her own record?
Keeping Track?
Item: Interim Town Manager M. Thorne came to the town of Paris at a critical juncture. Is he being allowed to be enough in the loop to make fully informed decisions of his own?
Just this last week he was seen in the Paris Town Office meeting room with selectmen Ripley and Ivey and Road Commissioner Danforth. If, by chance, the discussion happened to be about the upcoming agenda item for Monday 8-24 concerning expenditures for road work, one might wonder: was Mr. Thorne being updated, or was he being told what to do?
Item: On Thursday 8-13, who was receiving and assessing and giving input regarding the information coming from Town Attorney Geoff Hole on the complaint filed against the town on behalf of S. Jackson? Clearly only 2 of the selectmen. Which two, does one suppose? The complaint was addressed to all of the selectmen; why wouldn't all of the selectboard be privy to this discussion? This is potentially a pricey item, not to mention a rather dicey situation.
Item: As a matter of fact, who were the 2 selectmen, of the 3 with a "new direction" in mind, that decided to fire the town manager on June 22 in the first place; one of several moves that now has this town on its ear?
Item: And who told a reporter from the Advertiser Democrat that "'he promised to fight the [recall ordinance] draft until it says what I want'"? Advertiser Democrat 7-30-09 p. 5A.
Who's minding the store? Who's looking after the nuts and bolts of things in this town? Is anybody paying attention?
WHO IS RUNNING THE TOWN OF PARIS?
Just this last week he was seen in the Paris Town Office meeting room with selectmen Ripley and Ivey and Road Commissioner Danforth. If, by chance, the discussion happened to be about the upcoming agenda item for Monday 8-24 concerning expenditures for road work, one might wonder: was Mr. Thorne being updated, or was he being told what to do?
Item: On Thursday 8-13, who was receiving and assessing and giving input regarding the information coming from Town Attorney Geoff Hole on the complaint filed against the town on behalf of S. Jackson? Clearly only 2 of the selectmen. Which two, does one suppose? The complaint was addressed to all of the selectmen; why wouldn't all of the selectboard be privy to this discussion? This is potentially a pricey item, not to mention a rather dicey situation.
Item: As a matter of fact, who were the 2 selectmen, of the 3 with a "new direction" in mind, that decided to fire the town manager on June 22 in the first place; one of several moves that now has this town on its ear?
Item: And who told a reporter from the Advertiser Democrat that "'he promised to fight the [recall ordinance] draft until it says what I want'"? Advertiser Democrat 7-30-09 p. 5A.
Who's minding the store? Who's looking after the nuts and bolts of things in this town? Is anybody paying attention?
WHO IS RUNNING THE TOWN OF PARIS?
And who's looking out for us?
We have 5 elected selectmen in Paris. But the town seems to currently be run by 2. So, how does that work?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Got Questions?
On 8-24-09, 6:30p.m. Fire Station:
Public Hearing concerning
An "Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine"
Please attend, ask questions and speak out about what you believe is best for the whole town.
Incorrect and even misleading information is being circulated about what such an ordinance can/will do.
It has been alleged that a minority can overturn a majority. And that means...? That the petition signers, rather than the total voters at the election, can turn someone out of office? That the rest of the voters in the town cannot vote? This allegation is a diversion. The only part the word majority plays in this discussion is that in a fair vote, the majority of votes wins. Always.
Review the proposed/petitioned ordinance. Some questions might be:
*When, in the end, it is the majority of voters who decide whether an elected official gets recalled, how important is the number of voters who sign the petition requesting the recall election?
*Should there be specific language within the ordinance stating that an elected official can only be recalled for certain things? Could that become a trap? Should/could the wording of an ordinance limit the will of the voters? Reminder: in the end, by statute, voters elect; voters un-elect.
A recall ordinance is simply a tool. Once the ordinance is in place, voters who have lost confidence in an elected official will have the means to petition for, and vote in, a recall election. And, voters who support the official and do not want him or her recalled, can vote against it.
Public Hearing concerning
An "Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine"
Please attend, ask questions and speak out about what you believe is best for the whole town.
Incorrect and even misleading information is being circulated about what such an ordinance can/will do.
It has been alleged that a minority can overturn a majority. And that means...? That the petition signers, rather than the total voters at the election, can turn someone out of office? That the rest of the voters in the town cannot vote? This allegation is a diversion. The only part the word majority plays in this discussion is that in a fair vote, the majority of votes wins. Always.
Review the proposed/petitioned ordinance. Some questions might be:
*When, in the end, it is the majority of voters who decide whether an elected official gets recalled, how important is the number of voters who sign the petition requesting the recall election?
*Should there be specific language within the ordinance stating that an elected official can only be recalled for certain things? Could that become a trap? Should/could the wording of an ordinance limit the will of the voters? Reminder: in the end, by statute, voters elect; voters un-elect.
A recall ordinance is simply a tool. Once the ordinance is in place, voters who have lost confidence in an elected official will have the means to petition for, and vote in, a recall election. And, voters who support the official and do not want him or her recalled, can vote against it.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Citizen Alert!
Norway Paris Solid Waste Board meeting at the Paris Town Office, 6:00pm, 8/17/2009. Agenda contains item for action to remove a director (Janet Jamison). Per the recently enacted interlocal agreement, NPSW Board has no authority to do this; rather, it is only the selectboards of the two towns who have appointment/removal power over directors. Plan to attend and be ready to voice your concerns.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
You Thought What??
You thought this would go away? Select-Persons-Three: you thought you could haul in your own personal agenda, plop it on the desk of the Town, and, without so much as a by-your-leave, proceed to take right over? And that no one in the town would even bat an eye?
On the afternoon of Monday, 8-10-09, The Town of Paris was served with yet one more set of papers from Oxford County Superior Court. Sharon Jackson's Amended Complaint is a well crafted missile that includes a more detailed list of alleged violations of state and federal law, and requests punitive damages and other monetary compensation. It is a follow up to the 7-22-09 Complaint . (Note: viewing this and some other ".pdf" documents linked to this blog requires signing in with Google.)
Ms. Jackson is indeed fighting for her job. She is supported in that effort by the many who believe she brought impressive and much needed management skills, implementing a workable system for the mechanics of running of our town.
However, voters, the firing of Ms. Jackson is only one very unfortunate facet of a bigger agenda.
Consider:
*If a company is not in the red, the books balance, the business manager has received only outstanding reviews, and the staff working under the manager functions reasonably well, what other motive might there be to dismiss the manager?
* If there was no discussion with members of the full board before Troy Ripley attended his first board meeting, 6-22-09, how could his arrival have coincided with the firing of a manager such as described above? Who might have been planning ahead?
*Interfering with the correct workings of a machine without expertise can cause irreparable damage to the machine. What kind of motive would provoke that kind of interfering?
* The functioning of a municipal organization is like the workings of a machine. Interfering with that functioning, for any motive not readily discernable to the voters, puts the town as a whole in jeopardy.
*Who voted to have the town taken "in a new direction?" and for what motive?
*Was there some other vote, after the 6-13-09 Town Meeting, that would allow manipulating the town's budget? Did anyone vote that it was not important to avoid extra costs by careless selectmen that could result in thousands of extra dollars in legal expenses? What motive could ever be acceptable for circumventing the voters?
Who gains here? There is more at work here than the firing of a manager. Who gains here? Are all of our elected officials privy to information going into decisions? Who gains here? Is there transparency in the decisions being made?
Who gains here?
Are the interests of the whole Town of Paris being served?
Who's running this town?
On the afternoon of Monday, 8-10-09, The Town of Paris was served with yet one more set of papers from Oxford County Superior Court. Sharon Jackson's Amended Complaint is a well crafted missile that includes a more detailed list of alleged violations of state and federal law, and requests punitive damages and other monetary compensation. It is a follow up to the 7-22-09 Complaint . (Note: viewing this and some other ".pdf" documents linked to this blog requires signing in with Google.)
Ms. Jackson is indeed fighting for her job. She is supported in that effort by the many who believe she brought impressive and much needed management skills, implementing a workable system for the mechanics of running of our town.
However, voters, the firing of Ms. Jackson is only one very unfortunate facet of a bigger agenda.
Consider:
*If a company is not in the red, the books balance, the business manager has received only outstanding reviews, and the staff working under the manager functions reasonably well, what other motive might there be to dismiss the manager?
* If there was no discussion with members of the full board before Troy Ripley attended his first board meeting, 6-22-09, how could his arrival have coincided with the firing of a manager such as described above? Who might have been planning ahead?
*Interfering with the correct workings of a machine without expertise can cause irreparable damage to the machine. What kind of motive would provoke that kind of interfering?
* The functioning of a municipal organization is like the workings of a machine. Interfering with that functioning, for any motive not readily discernable to the voters, puts the town as a whole in jeopardy.
*Who voted to have the town taken "in a new direction?" and for what motive?
*Was there some other vote, after the 6-13-09 Town Meeting, that would allow manipulating the town's budget? Did anyone vote that it was not important to avoid extra costs by careless selectmen that could result in thousands of extra dollars in legal expenses? What motive could ever be acceptable for circumventing the voters?
Who gains here? There is more at work here than the firing of a manager. Who gains here? Are all of our elected officials privy to information going into decisions? Who gains here? Is there transparency in the decisions being made?
Who gains here?
Are the interests of the whole Town of Paris being served?
Who's running this town?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Keep the Pressure On
Monday, August 10th at 7pm brings the next regularly scheduled Paris Selectmen meeting. The meeting may well be at the Paris Fire Station on Western Avenue. Or not. Be sure to call the Town Office, at 743-2501, that day to verify meeting location.
But come anyway, even if you have to stand in the parking lot by the Town Office and look in the windows, because the citizens of Paris must keep the pressure on the Board of Selectmen to represent the whole town and do their job properly. It is the voters who ultimately have the power, and we must never let them forget this.
Voters need to come, and during citizens' comments must ask:
*Are you going to respond to the lawsuit filed by former town manager Sharon Jackson? When this line of questioning is shut down by Chairman Ivey with the response that "This is under litigation and we cannot talk about it," ask again. And again. A simple answer "yes" will suffice. "Yes" will not compromise anything.
*Why are you choosing to close the town office one afternoon a week? It was not set up that way in the budget that was passed on June 13th. Other arrangements were made to save the money you seem to be claiming to save. How do you justify this change?
*Who authorized Chief Verrier to fire a patrolman? And who authorized him to hire an office clerk for an hourly rate that was more than budgeted? He does not have the authority, nor is it his job to do either of those things. Who is accountable here? Whose agenda is being served?
*Whose interests are you serving as Selectmen right now? There are questions you refuse to answer, face to face conversations you refuse to take part in. There are hundreds of angry people in this small town whose concerns and interests are not being represented and who will not be put down by name calling (see Advertiser-Democrat article, 8/6/09) or being ignored (see August 4, this site). Who, specifically, are you serving?
Paris voters, come and demand answers to these questions and bring your own questions, as well. The government of a town is intended to serve all the people of a town, not be used as a tool to serve a select few. Everyone in a town matters and deserves to be recognized.
But come anyway, even if you have to stand in the parking lot by the Town Office and look in the windows, because the citizens of Paris must keep the pressure on the Board of Selectmen to represent the whole town and do their job properly. It is the voters who ultimately have the power, and we must never let them forget this.
Voters need to come, and during citizens' comments must ask:
*Are you going to respond to the lawsuit filed by former town manager Sharon Jackson? When this line of questioning is shut down by Chairman Ivey with the response that "This is under litigation and we cannot talk about it," ask again. And again. A simple answer "yes" will suffice. "Yes" will not compromise anything.
*Why are you choosing to close the town office one afternoon a week? It was not set up that way in the budget that was passed on June 13th. Other arrangements were made to save the money you seem to be claiming to save. How do you justify this change?
*Who authorized Chief Verrier to fire a patrolman? And who authorized him to hire an office clerk for an hourly rate that was more than budgeted? He does not have the authority, nor is it his job to do either of those things. Who is accountable here? Whose agenda is being served?
*Whose interests are you serving as Selectmen right now? There are questions you refuse to answer, face to face conversations you refuse to take part in. There are hundreds of angry people in this small town whose concerns and interests are not being represented and who will not be put down by name calling (see Advertiser-Democrat article, 8/6/09) or being ignored (see August 4, this site). Who, specifically, are you serving?
Paris voters, come and demand answers to these questions and bring your own questions, as well. The government of a town is intended to serve all the people of a town, not be used as a tool to serve a select few. Everyone in a town matters and deserves to be recognized.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Are You Reading This?
If you are reading this series of news items about our town of Paris, and decide that these are items of concern, tell a friend. Tell 3 friends.
If you are reading this and wish there was a chance to write a snappy and zingy response like you can on the on-line edition of the Lewiston Sun Journal, sorry; can't help you there.
The Town of Paris is in crisis. Everyone in Paris is affected. Everyone in Paris needs to know and care that there are folks who have a private agenda at work. There is no one to prevent wrong decisions being made on behalf of the entire town except the voters. And voters need to know they have to step up.
It is a good thing when the local newspapers pick up on a serious issue and report it factually, enlightening the public. Even if the public, sometimes, doesn't really want all that responsibility.
However, there are incidents, documents, situations, that don't get to the public press in time for a deadline, or may not get into the public press because of an editorial lack of interest or choice of topic. This is when a private effort can offer an alternative source of information.
The Paris Reporter may be a small operation; but, we have an ear to the ground. First time readers: this blog doesn't end at the bottom of the first page; check "older posts." We go back to July 5.
If you are reading this and wish there was a chance to write a snappy and zingy response like you can on the on-line edition of the Lewiston Sun Journal, sorry; can't help you there.
The Town of Paris is in crisis. Everyone in Paris is affected. Everyone in Paris needs to know and care that there are folks who have a private agenda at work. There is no one to prevent wrong decisions being made on behalf of the entire town except the voters. And voters need to know they have to step up.
It is a good thing when the local newspapers pick up on a serious issue and report it factually, enlightening the public. Even if the public, sometimes, doesn't really want all that responsibility.
However, there are incidents, documents, situations, that don't get to the public press in time for a deadline, or may not get into the public press because of an editorial lack of interest or choice of topic. This is when a private effort can offer an alternative source of information.
The Paris Reporter may be a small operation; but, we have an ear to the ground. First time readers: this blog doesn't end at the bottom of the first page; check "older posts." We go back to July 5.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Overheard....
"This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." - Chairman Ivey
...Ya think so?
...Ya think so?
How To Un-elect
Amidst citizens left out in the parking lot having to peer in windows; citizens already inside being commanded that they were done - one threatened with police removal - and Ch. Ivey announcing, "I'm not answering any more questions. I don't want any more questions," there was, in addition, something a little remarkable. At that 7-27-09 meeting, 354 registered voters presented a certified petition to the selectmen demanding that the recall ordinance presented 2 weeks earlier (and immediately tabled ) be put on a ballot.
A Recall Ordinance
*is the only tool that establishes the procedure for a recall election (see July 19, this site);
*allows for the removal of an elected municipal officer before his or her term is up;
*was drafted, by request of Paris Selectmen 2-9-09, by the Policy & Procedure Committee;
*was drafted after comparing 10-12 ordinances already in place in Maine towns;
(Google: "Recall Ordinances State of Maine")
*includes language for "The Recall Petition."
The Recall Petition
*in most of the ordinances researched, follows Maine Municipal Association sample's general structure;
*is not intended to be a frivolous act, and must follow protocol;
*includes language, set by each town, defining the specific percentage of voters who can initiate a petition;
*of many Maine towns researched uses the state statute suggested 10% number voted in last gubernatorial election; some argue that a higher number would deter tit for tat recall petitions;
*does not have to include in its language specific reasons for recall, though MMA's sample includes language that would ask the petitioners to state some general reason;
*that does include specific reasons for recall in its language can limit the effectiveness of the tool, by sidetracking into proving specific allegations instead of letting the voters make the decision as the law requires.
The status of the petitioned ordinance of 7-27-09 is unclear; there was a great deal of confusion that evening..... But two things are certain: (1) The petition includes legal language with deadlines that must be responded to in an acceptable fashion; and, (2) 354 people will take up more room than that little room and that parking lot put together can handle.
A Recall Ordinance
*is the only tool that establishes the procedure for a recall election (see July 19, this site);
*allows for the removal of an elected municipal officer before his or her term is up;
*was drafted, by request of Paris Selectmen 2-9-09, by the Policy & Procedure Committee;
*was drafted after comparing 10-12 ordinances already in place in Maine towns;
(Google: "Recall Ordinances State of Maine")
*includes language for "The Recall Petition."
The Recall Petition
*in most of the ordinances researched, follows Maine Municipal Association sample's general structure;
*is not intended to be a frivolous act, and must follow protocol;
*includes language, set by each town, defining the specific percentage of voters who can initiate a petition;
*of many Maine towns researched uses the state statute suggested 10% number voted in last gubernatorial election; some argue that a higher number would deter tit for tat recall petitions;
*does not have to include in its language specific reasons for recall, though MMA's sample includes language that would ask the petitioners to state some general reason;
*that does include specific reasons for recall in its language can limit the effectiveness of the tool, by sidetracking into proving specific allegations instead of letting the voters make the decision as the law requires.
The status of the petitioned ordinance of 7-27-09 is unclear; there was a great deal of confusion that evening..... But two things are certain: (1) The petition includes legal language with deadlines that must be responded to in an acceptable fashion; and, (2) 354 people will take up more room than that little room and that parking lot put together can handle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)