On November 3rd there will be a ballot for issues that effect citizens in the state of Maine, possibly the Country. But, also, in spite of those who might wish it to be otherwise, there will also be a ballot with an issue for the voters in the Town of Paris.
Why would there be a party, or parties, "who might wish it to be otherwise?"
Why would there be any movement from the arena of elected officials to put up road blocks to allowing voters to have the opportunity to speak? Why would there be dragging of feet on deadlines and decisions that would try to prohibit an article from getting to a ballot so that voters could decide for themselves what they want?
Are the voters of Paris not wise enough to make choices that effect their own pocket books and life activities, and the welfare of their town?
Or, are there individuals who might fear for their jobs if the voters make the choice to vote in a certain item?
Consider what having a ballot means. It means an opportunity to vote our opinion. It means being a part of the voice that manages our town. If there is only one issue, it means that we get to weigh in on that issue and how it might be resolved in a way that will effect our lives as we live them in this town.
So, having been told, at first, that there would be no local questions on the Nov. 3 ballot for Paris voters, now it seems we have evolved to a place where we have an actual item to vote on: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?"
Having a recall ordinance on the books is not a guarantee that any elected official will be removed from office. It is simply a tool that many towns in Maine have put in place to allow voters a means to rescind an earlier vote that elected an official they may subsequently have lost confidence in. It is a re-vote, and as such, should not be taken lightly. A recall ordinance provides a procedure that must be followed carefully.
But, those who would seek to script how voters in Paris should think, need to remember that elected officials, in a municipality run by the democratic process, govern at the pleasure of the majority of the voters, the people who live there.
The recall ordinance proposed for Paris was drafted, at the request of the Paris Selectmen, 2-2009, using, as a model, an example furnished by the Maine Municipal Association. It is a model used in many municipalities in this state, some directly, some with more variations.
No matter how restrictive - or unrestrictive - the language of the final draft ordinances that went before the various municipalities of this state for vote, the intent was clear: these ordinances were to provide the opportunity for voters to un-elect officials in whom the voters had completely lost confidence.
The Town of Harpswell is on their second draft of their Recall Ordinance. The first was so restrictive that people complained they couldn't recall anyone. The second draft hasn't pleased Harpswell voters much more. The Town of Andover's recall ordinance, on the other hand, is very similar to Paris' proposed draft. Andover has tried, twice, to recall the same elected official, and has failed both times, because there have not been enough votes to recall the official.
Neither town has removed any elected official. In both towns it is the voters who are the decision makers. And that is as it should be. It is always the voters, at the polls, who ultimately make the choice about who is elected, and in the case of a recall, who ought to be un-elected.
Paris voters will have the choice of whether to put a recall ordinance in place Nov. 3. Voters need to understand that this is only a tool. This tool - the same one voters in many other Maine towns have - would give them the only means to recall an elected official; and then only if they, the voters, are truly feeling disenfranchised and betrayed.
In the best of times, once the ordinance-tool is in place, life will just go along as usual.
If it is not the best of times, however - if there are enough voters who feel disenfranchised and betrayed - then they, the dissatisfied voters, must mount a petition asking for a recall election, gather a specified number of signatures from other voters who agree, and present that petition to the selectmen.
The voters of the whole town must weigh in at this point; and the outcome decides whether the official in question has a shortened term or not.
It is, in the democratic process, the voters who get to speak. That is the way it should be; the way it must be.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Bottom Line
[Editor's note: A brief summary of The Town of Paris' financial situation will be prepared for the public, periodically. The information is public knowledge, but Forrie Everett, budget chairman, asks the finance clerk ahead of time, and pays for any copies himself. He will present the information at selectmen's meetings as long as he is allowed to, and his informal report will also be posted in "The Paris Reporter".]
As of 9-28-09, check book balance [for Town of Paris] is $344,395.20
Tax money for September 09 is $115,289.78. (The norm for September is $210,000.00 to $220,000.00, so tax money seems to be coming in slowly.) In October 09 we should take in over $1,000,000.00, due to escrowed accounts that will come in around the middle of the month.
The town has paid former Town Mgr. Jackson about $39,000.00 and Interim Town Mgr. Thorne $7,200.00 so far. Attorney fees from 7-01-09 to 8-31-09 were $3,275.07; $2,606.07 of that amount was paid for Jackson law suit. Total left in the account designated for legal costs is a little over $4000.00.
We still have some very large payments to make. State Revenue was down this month - only $7,173.77. This happens every now and then. If Interim Town Mgr. Thorne keeps an eye on the $$ we should make it to November tax deadline ok. If not, we will need to take out a TAN [tax anticipation note].
Submitted 9-28-09 by Forrie Everett, Ch., Town of Paris Budget Committee
As of 9-28-09, check book balance [for Town of Paris] is $344,395.20
Tax money for September 09 is $115,289.78. (The norm for September is $210,000.00 to $220,000.00, so tax money seems to be coming in slowly.) In October 09 we should take in over $1,000,000.00, due to escrowed accounts that will come in around the middle of the month.
The town has paid former Town Mgr. Jackson about $39,000.00 and Interim Town Mgr. Thorne $7,200.00 so far. Attorney fees from 7-01-09 to 8-31-09 were $3,275.07; $2,606.07 of that amount was paid for Jackson law suit. Total left in the account designated for legal costs is a little over $4000.00.
We still have some very large payments to make. State Revenue was down this month - only $7,173.77. This happens every now and then. If Interim Town Mgr. Thorne keeps an eye on the $$ we should make it to November tax deadline ok. If not, we will need to take out a TAN [tax anticipation note].
Submitted 9-28-09 by Forrie Everett, Ch., Town of Paris Budget Committee
Monday, September 28, 2009
And There Were Still 55 Who Came Again
9-28-09
"...still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris Town Office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris Fire Station..." (Town Clerk, 9-24-09)
Well, yes, it was, actually. Moved to the Fire Station, that is. 55 people turned up at the Fire Station after Chairman Ivey announced, "We will be moving to the Fire Station " - in response to Selectman Herrick's "I would think you'd want to make a decision pretty soon...." in response to people stacked up in the halls of the Town Office at 7 pm.
You actually thought we'd not show, didn't you? That we'd lose interest...Guess what?
Instant New Meeting, 7:20 pm, or so.
Selectman Herrick "I have obtained these 2 items - bills from Bernstein Shur, July-August" -legal fees $3691
[editorial note: budgeted amount for legal fees 2009-2010 = $8,000; F. Everett's presentation 9-28-09, and this site.]
Two months, and 46% used up...oh...where to dig up new resources.....
Citizens? let them eat cake.
Don't you have a law to consider in this case? I know you have little regard for the law, but...
Respect - I will have respect here - Do you want to be escorted out?
What an exercise in futility - you didn't notice the large numbers attending? Why not have meetings here in the first place?
We probably will next time .....wait - can I write that down?
I understand the only reason the subdivision ordinance is not on the ballot is because the petitioned recall ordinance would have to be on the ballot, too.
Now, I never said that. Back when we wanted to put the subdivision ordinance on the ballot, you remember.....
...a ballot...All we ask is that you give the citizens a chance to speak - this is the same thing you railed against, remember?
stony-faced silence, eyes floorward...
You will speak to the Board.
Any documents I brought you information from ...
Speak to the board.
...I have from the town office, and I paid for them.
Wrong information was presented, manager misspoke
Some CD's counted as available and can't be touched; subdivision fee money is in town report.[editorial note - F. Everett, budget chairman's full report will be posted on this site]
Bonding Rating from Standard & Poor's improvement from " bbb+" score in 2005 to A+ in 2009
a credit to former mgr. Jackson's financial management and leadership. [editorial note - a full article will be posted on this site.]
Wait. Wait, selectmen make the decisions, right? Don't make it like she gets all the credit...
Of course. But it starts at the top, doesn't it?
We have 2 recall ordinances on the books.
7-13: Policy and Procedures Committee. Tabled.
7-27: citizen petition same ordinance, demanded it be on ballot. Accepted, not voted for ballot;
But:
Policy & Procedure Committee was officially slated for the Nov. 3 ballot.
Who made that motion?
I did. Skip seconded. All five voted.
stony-faced silence...
...then, great wailing and gnashing of teeth...
I think you should do the lawful thing.
No, I think you should look at what you folks are doing. At least the ethical things you... how can you...
The law is very clear. We...
No, you look....
Mr. Ripley, let me finish... There is a procedure....
For a good 20 minutes. A gold star for perseverance, stamina, and extreme dedication in the face of serious teeth-gnashing and continuous, most-piteous wailing.
There was more, including revealing comments about decisions made that appeared to have kept the Subdivision Panel's long months of work from getting to the ballot; power plays - and playing - from the vice chairman; and several "Sit down, [citizen]" "Do you want to go home[another citizen]?" by the chair. At one time Ivey even galloped - from his chair clear to the back of the huge hall and out into the parking lot - and made the police chief come in and threaten a citizen, who, with many others, had cheered at one point, but was clearly in the sights of Mr. I all evening... actually, for many evenings....
For the most unbelievable performance that firehouse may have seen in a good while, order the DVD of this show from NPCTV, 743-7859. That cameraman is sharp; he may even have captured the police action in the back of the hall....
"...still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris Town Office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris Fire Station..." (Town Clerk, 9-24-09)
Well, yes, it was, actually. Moved to the Fire Station, that is. 55 people turned up at the Fire Station after Chairman Ivey announced, "We will be moving to the Fire Station " - in response to Selectman Herrick's "I would think you'd want to make a decision pretty soon...." in response to people stacked up in the halls of the Town Office at 7 pm.
You actually thought we'd not show, didn't you? That we'd lose interest...Guess what?
Instant New Meeting, 7:20 pm, or so.
Selectman Herrick "I have obtained these 2 items - bills from Bernstein Shur, July-August" -legal fees $3691
[editorial note: budgeted amount for legal fees 2009-2010 = $8,000; F. Everett's presentation 9-28-09, and this site.]
Two months, and 46% used up...oh...where to dig up new resources.....
Citizens? let them eat cake.
Don't you have a law to consider in this case? I know you have little regard for the law, but...
Respect - I will have respect here - Do you want to be escorted out?
What an exercise in futility - you didn't notice the large numbers attending? Why not have meetings here in the first place?
We probably will next time .....wait - can I write that down?
I understand the only reason the subdivision ordinance is not on the ballot is because the petitioned recall ordinance would have to be on the ballot, too.
Now, I never said that. Back when we wanted to put the subdivision ordinance on the ballot, you remember.....
...a ballot...All we ask is that you give the citizens a chance to speak - this is the same thing you railed against, remember?
stony-faced silence, eyes floorward...
You will speak to the Board.
Any documents I brought you information from ...
Speak to the board.
...I have from the town office, and I paid for them.
Wrong information was presented, manager misspoke
Some CD's counted as available and can't be touched; subdivision fee money is in town report.[editorial note - F. Everett, budget chairman's full report will be posted on this site]
Bonding Rating from Standard & Poor's improvement from " bbb+" score in 2005 to A+ in 2009
a credit to former mgr. Jackson's financial management and leadership. [editorial note - a full article will be posted on this site.]
Wait. Wait, selectmen make the decisions, right? Don't make it like she gets all the credit...
Of course. But it starts at the top, doesn't it?
We have 2 recall ordinances on the books.
7-13: Policy and Procedures Committee. Tabled.
7-27: citizen petition same ordinance, demanded it be on ballot. Accepted, not voted for ballot;
But:
Policy & Procedure Committee was officially slated for the Nov. 3 ballot.
Who made that motion?
I did. Skip seconded. All five voted.
stony-faced silence...
...then, great wailing and gnashing of teeth...
I think you should do the lawful thing.
No, I think you should look at what you folks are doing. At least the ethical things you... how can you...
The law is very clear. We...
No, you look....
Mr. Ripley, let me finish... There is a procedure....
For a good 20 minutes. A gold star for perseverance, stamina, and extreme dedication in the face of serious teeth-gnashing and continuous, most-piteous wailing.
There was more, including revealing comments about decisions made that appeared to have kept the Subdivision Panel's long months of work from getting to the ballot; power plays - and playing - from the vice chairman; and several "Sit down, [citizen]" "Do you want to go home[another citizen]?" by the chair. At one time Ivey even galloped - from his chair clear to the back of the huge hall and out into the parking lot - and made the police chief come in and threaten a citizen, who, with many others, had cheered at one point, but was clearly in the sights of Mr. I all evening... actually, for many evenings....
For the most unbelievable performance that firehouse may have seen in a good while, order the DVD of this show from NPCTV, 743-7859. That cameraman is sharp; he may even have captured the police action in the back of the hall....
Thursday, September 24, 2009
It's Over Here...No, Wait....
Paris Selectmen will meet Monday 9-28-09, 7 PM. Somewhere. Call the town office to be sure. 743-2501. Same old drill...
Fire Chief Frost, responding to a voter's phone call, said he was asked by the town clerk if the fire station was available Monday night, and he said, "I told her it was." In response to a call to the town office, a voter was told by the town clerk Tuesday that the meeting is "still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris town office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris fire station and that room has been reserved."
Why not just have it at the fire station and be done with it?
More and more voters are concerned, and are watching more closely. Seems like there must be something to hide if voters keep not being accommodated; not given a chance to see how the town's business is being run. It makes one ask, "Why do the selectmen keep trying to discourage people from coming to see what they're doing?"
Fire Chief Frost, responding to a voter's phone call, said he was asked by the town clerk if the fire station was available Monday night, and he said, "I told her it was." In response to a call to the town office, a voter was told by the town clerk Tuesday that the meeting is "still scheduled to be here, at least in the beginning, at the Paris town office; and if it gets that there's too many people to fit in this room, it will be moved to the Paris fire station and that room has been reserved."
Why not just have it at the fire station and be done with it?
More and more voters are concerned, and are watching more closely. Seems like there must be something to hide if voters keep not being accommodated; not given a chance to see how the town's business is being run. It makes one ask, "Why do the selectmen keep trying to discourage people from coming to see what they're doing?"
Really? No Ballot At All?
Thursday morning, 9-24-09, a citizen went into the town office to ask what would be on the local ballot along with the state referendum Nov. 3. The response was that there would be no questions at all on the ballot.
No questions at all, because everyone missed the deadline. Seems everyone ignored the 45-day rule.
Really. Really?
Or did someone drop...hide... the ball? For a referendum vote, information must be submitted and approved, and on track, hearings scheduled, t's crossed and i's dotted, 45 days before the date in question. In this case, that would have been September 19 for a November 3 referendum vote.
This scheduling and planning ahead and arranging of details falls under the job description of the registrar of voters, i.e., the town clerk, overseen by the town manager. Various well-informed individuals are also likely to be privy to that kind of scheduling information.
It is difficult to imagine that, in a town like Paris, key people involved in municipal government matters and items of critical interest to the voters would not have educated themselves on such deadlines and criteria. Although being privy to that information and doing something with it are two separate items....
Consider an individual, who not only sits on a special committee to rework sections of Paris' subdivision ordinance, and on the board of selectmen, but who has been party to privileged, exclusive conversations with Interim Manager Thorne and Town Atty. Hole. One finds it hard to believe this individual could be unaware of these deadlines and requirements.
So, there are inevitable questions.
How does it happen that, mysteriously, there is not even one of the following 3 items on any ballot for Paris voters to consider on the November 3 State Referendum day?
(1) "Ordinance for Recall Election for the Town of Paris", requested by Paris Board of Selectmen 2/19/ 09 , voted to be put on the Nov. 3 ballot [Minutes 7-27-09, item 7], a public hearing to be held 8-24-09 (which indeed did happen);
(2) "Shall the Town Vote to Enact an Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris Maine?" , a petition filed by 354 Paris voters when the above ordinance was tabled the first time it came before the board of selectmen. The petition was certified by the town clerk prior to being presented to, and accepted by, all 5 selectmen [Minutes 7-27-09, item 6]. The petition was drawn on 30-A M.R.S.A. 2528(5);
(3) "Shall an Ordinance Entitled 'Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Paris, Maine' be Amended?" , committee work submitted 9-16-09. Charged with rewriting certain portions of the 2009 subdivision ordinance, 6 individuals who made up an independent "Subdivision Panel" met regularly over at least 3 months to rework some of the flaws in the newly passed ordinance.
One could ponder the question:
Was there anything on the short list above that someone(s) might have preferred to not have on a ballot before the voters?
No questions at all, because everyone missed the deadline. Seems everyone ignored the 45-day rule.
Really. Really?
Or did someone drop...hide... the ball? For a referendum vote, information must be submitted and approved, and on track, hearings scheduled, t's crossed and i's dotted, 45 days before the date in question. In this case, that would have been September 19 for a November 3 referendum vote.
This scheduling and planning ahead and arranging of details falls under the job description of the registrar of voters, i.e., the town clerk, overseen by the town manager. Various well-informed individuals are also likely to be privy to that kind of scheduling information.
It is difficult to imagine that, in a town like Paris, key people involved in municipal government matters and items of critical interest to the voters would not have educated themselves on such deadlines and criteria. Although being privy to that information and doing something with it are two separate items....
Consider an individual, who not only sits on a special committee to rework sections of Paris' subdivision ordinance, and on the board of selectmen, but who has been party to privileged, exclusive conversations with Interim Manager Thorne and Town Atty. Hole. One finds it hard to believe this individual could be unaware of these deadlines and requirements.
So, there are inevitable questions.
How does it happen that, mysteriously, there is not even one of the following 3 items on any ballot for Paris voters to consider on the November 3 State Referendum day?
(1) "Ordinance for Recall Election for the Town of Paris", requested by Paris Board of Selectmen 2/19/ 09 , voted to be put on the Nov. 3 ballot [Minutes 7-27-09, item 7], a public hearing to be held 8-24-09 (which indeed did happen);
(2) "Shall the Town Vote to Enact an Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris Maine?" , a petition filed by 354 Paris voters when the above ordinance was tabled the first time it came before the board of selectmen. The petition was certified by the town clerk prior to being presented to, and accepted by, all 5 selectmen [Minutes 7-27-09, item 6]. The petition was drawn on 30-A M.R.S.A. 2528(5);
(3) "Shall an Ordinance Entitled 'Subdivision Ordinance for the Town of Paris, Maine' be Amended?" , committee work submitted 9-16-09. Charged with rewriting certain portions of the 2009 subdivision ordinance, 6 individuals who made up an independent "Subdivision Panel" met regularly over at least 3 months to rework some of the flaws in the newly passed ordinance.
One could ponder the question:
Was there anything on the short list above that someone(s) might have preferred to not have on a ballot before the voters?
Not So
To Whom It May Concern in the ballot department over there in the Town Office:
*Not possible for any questions to be put before the voters on a referendum ballot Nov. 3?
*because no questions were filed the required 45 days before Nov. 3rd (making that date Sep. 19th);
Not So. On two counts.
Maine Municipal Association, Town Meeting and Election Manual, Chapter 4, "Referendum Questions," pp. 62-63;
"...orders of the municipal officers for referendum elections be filed with the clerk at least 45 days before the elections can be held. Therefore, if the municipal officers on their own initiative decide to order a matter to a referendum vote, they should make that decision at a properly noticed meeting, on a motion with a second and a vote, and write out an order and sign it and deliver it to the clerk. (Alternatively, if minutes of their meetings are kept...and if the motion as recorded provides sufficient information, that record can be regarded as an 'order.' ")
On Monday, 7-27-09, the following item was listed in the Selectmen's Minutes, signed, Michael Thorne:
#7. "Discussion and action on an 'Ordinance for a Recall Election for the Town of Paris'.(This item was tabled from meeting of 7-13-09.) Motion to put the 'Ordinance for Recall Election' on the November 3rd election and to hold a public hearing at the Fire Station on August 24th @ 6:30, was made by R. Glover, seconded by L. Herrick, all five (5) voted in favor."
The ballot has to be ready 30 days before the vote for absentee voters. A Paris voter was recently told by the Town Clerk that ballots were going to be "printed in-house" to save the town some money. That would make the ballot-ready-day Friday, October 2. Somebody better get crackin'. Paris voters have a referendum issue to consider.
*Not possible for any questions to be put before the voters on a referendum ballot Nov. 3?
*because no questions were filed the required 45 days before Nov. 3rd (making that date Sep. 19th);
Not So. On two counts.
Maine Municipal Association, Town Meeting and Election Manual, Chapter 4, "Referendum Questions," pp. 62-63;
"...orders of the municipal officers for referendum elections be filed with the clerk at least 45 days before the elections can be held. Therefore, if the municipal officers on their own initiative decide to order a matter to a referendum vote, they should make that decision at a properly noticed meeting, on a motion with a second and a vote, and write out an order and sign it and deliver it to the clerk. (Alternatively, if minutes of their meetings are kept...and if the motion as recorded provides sufficient information, that record can be regarded as an 'order.' ")
On Monday, 7-27-09, the following item was listed in the Selectmen's Minutes, signed, Michael Thorne:
#7. "Discussion and action on an 'Ordinance for a Recall Election for the Town of Paris'.(This item was tabled from meeting of 7-13-09.) Motion to put the 'Ordinance for Recall Election' on the November 3rd election and to hold a public hearing at the Fire Station on August 24th @ 6:30, was made by R. Glover, seconded by L. Herrick, all five (5) voted in favor."
The ballot has to be ready 30 days before the vote for absentee voters. A Paris voter was recently told by the Town Clerk that ballots were going to be "printed in-house" to save the town some money. That would make the ballot-ready-day Friday, October 2. Somebody better get crackin'. Paris voters have a referendum issue to consider.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Why Are We Not Welcome?
Why would anyone think that citizens are losing interest in selectmen meetings in Paris?
Citizen's phone call to Paris Town Office 9-22-09: "Where will the next selectmen's meeting be held? People are asking me." Response: "At the Town office." Citizen: "Why there, in such a limited space?" Response: "Well, the number of people attending is beginning to dwindle."
Dwindle...
Last selectmen's meeting, 9-14-09, at a brand new location, Paris Elementary School on High Street, 60-65 people attended. That is less than 80; however, it is significantly more than 39 (plus selectmen, interim town mgr., cameraman and 2 reporters), the number that fits in the Town Office meeting room, the number that, back in July, left 23 people, including the Fire Chief, outside in the parking lot, their participation limited to looking in through the windows.
Why would the administration in this town come to the conclusion that citizens have lost interest in what they might be up to? How is it that the responses of town clerk and interim town manager are, without exception, "I haven't heard from the selectmen yet." Or a variation on that theme, "I'll be meeting with the selectmen later today."
Consider: What is it the selectmen do not want citizens to notice? What do they have to hide? Why aren't they excited, even pleased, to know they have such an aware and responsive citizenry?
And, since there are at least two selectmen kept in the dark about any planning whatsoever, which selectmen are making the decisions referred to in the previous paragraphs?
Who is running the town of Paris? Are you happy about that? An increasing number of people are not....
Don't be fooled if you thought the last meeting you attended was not exciting enough - that controversial decisions weren't being made in front of you - it's a real possibility that decisions were, and still are, being made behind your back and out of your sight; decisions that could be costing the taxpayers money and effecting the town's future.
Find a way to come to the
Paris Selectmen's meeting Monday 9-28-09.
Call (743-2501) to confirm where - last word was at the Town Office.
Although, you may want to bring a sleeping bag, at least a lawn chair; because if you don't get there early, you may not be welcomed inside for the meeting....
Citizen's phone call to Paris Town Office 9-22-09: "Where will the next selectmen's meeting be held? People are asking me." Response: "At the Town office." Citizen: "Why there, in such a limited space?" Response: "Well, the number of people attending is beginning to dwindle."
Dwindle...
Last selectmen's meeting, 9-14-09, at a brand new location, Paris Elementary School on High Street, 60-65 people attended. That is less than 80; however, it is significantly more than 39 (plus selectmen, interim town mgr., cameraman and 2 reporters), the number that fits in the Town Office meeting room, the number that, back in July, left 23 people, including the Fire Chief, outside in the parking lot, their participation limited to looking in through the windows.
Why would the administration in this town come to the conclusion that citizens have lost interest in what they might be up to? How is it that the responses of town clerk and interim town manager are, without exception, "I haven't heard from the selectmen yet." Or a variation on that theme, "I'll be meeting with the selectmen later today."
Consider: What is it the selectmen do not want citizens to notice? What do they have to hide? Why aren't they excited, even pleased, to know they have such an aware and responsive citizenry?
And, since there are at least two selectmen kept in the dark about any planning whatsoever, which selectmen are making the decisions referred to in the previous paragraphs?
Who is running the town of Paris? Are you happy about that? An increasing number of people are not....
Don't be fooled if you thought the last meeting you attended was not exciting enough - that controversial decisions weren't being made in front of you - it's a real possibility that decisions were, and still are, being made behind your back and out of your sight; decisions that could be costing the taxpayers money and effecting the town's future.
Find a way to come to the
Paris Selectmen's meeting Monday 9-28-09.
Call (743-2501) to confirm where - last word was at the Town Office.
Although, you may want to bring a sleeping bag, at least a lawn chair; because if you don't get there early, you may not be welcomed inside for the meeting....
Friday, September 18, 2009
Whose town?
Chairman Ivey's attempt 0n 9-14-09 to explain and justify a letter, from Interim Mg. Town Manager Thorne telling a citizen that the rules for being on the selectmen's agenda had suddenly changed, provoked a revealing exchange with two other selectmen. The two challenged the chairman's authority to set standards not approved by the whole board. The whole exchange (p. 5A, Advertiser Democrat 9-17-09) led to what might be seen as an astounding statement of assumed ownership and power:
"Well, we also don't need people going in and wasting time with our finance officer on our nickel..."
Mr. Chairman: Who is "we"? Whose finance officer are "we" talking about? Exactly whose nickel is this?
"Well, we also don't need people going in and wasting time with our finance officer on our nickel..."
Mr. Chairman: Who is "we"? Whose finance officer are "we" talking about? Exactly whose nickel is this?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Just Say No
A town's government is not a private club, a closed membership. A town's government is a public forum, its membership the voters, citizens, and residents who live in that town.
The Town of Paris has a population of roughly 5000 people, and at last count about 3000 registered voters. Less, often far less, than 1500 of the registered voters regularly vote; even so, when voting takes place, the whole town, the entire membership of the public forum, is then being represented - for better or worse.
So, when there is voting to be done, officials to be elected, ordinances to be requested and examined, budgets to be inspected and approved, municipal policies to be created and evaluated, it would seem prudent to....
Just Say No to manipulation
*of how financial data is reported to the public, e.g., 8-24, interim mgr. Thorne said $800,000 was available for immediate use; but on further inspection the amount was much less;
8-24, when asked what legal expenses were to date, public statement was that there was no tally of expenses to present; but further inspection produced one itemized bill, 7-30-09, stating $1,199.04 paid for such;
9-14, in response to a question re. a subdivision assessment fund, into which developers have been putting $400 per subdivision lot to support new recreational sites, (not fund on-going activities), Thorne reported to the audience, as quoted in Advertiser Democrat
9-17-09, p.4A, "It's in the general ledger. That's why it doesn't show up in your annual report, because it's not a budgeted item."
However, that item most certainly is in the 2007-2008 Town Report, p. 78, under "Subdivision Assessment" [available at the Town Office if you don't have one]. Balance at the end of 2008 shows $39,130, but should be $35,600, the mistake to be corrected in the current audit.
Just Say No to disenfranchising
*citizens' rights by limiting their access to public information, e.g., 7-13-09 and 7-27-09, holding selectmen meetings in a space that severely limited seating capacity for concerned citizens, and agreeing only to move the two August meetings, and so far one in September, to larger quarters under citizen pressure;
9-14-09, the culmination of many weeks of trying to restrict inquiring questions from critics by all but refusing to let citizens officially onto the agenda at all, and only calling on a limited few during the less formal "Citizen Comments," because "We don't want to be blindsided...."
Just Say No to Bullying
*behavior that attempts to intimidate citizens who oppose, e.g., at any and all meetings, cutting citizen questions off midstream if it becomes clear the questions are investigative or critical, though comments from other less threatening citizens are "let through"; threatening to have citizens - who will not stop their questions when they are cut off, or who defend another citizen being cut off - with being thrown out;
at various and random times, after a particularly contentious public discussion or petition, making phone calls to certain citizens to question a citizen's motives;
on one occasion, in the parking lot after the meeting, the "bumping into" and embarrassing of a family member of a vocal critic, by a person in a responsible position who should have known better.
Just Say No to Lying
*behavior that can clearly be proved otherwise, e.g.,8-24-09, in a hearing, trying to track down relevant communication from the town's attorney re. a citizens' petition submitted early July, citizens received 3 totally different answers from the chairman; further investigation the next day provided a different answer yet.
8-13-09, on a litigation item that clearly required the attention of the entire select board because of the critical financial and legal implications for the whole town, it later came to light, in the discussion on 8-24-09, that only 2 selectmen met with the lawyer that day, and no other selectman was ever notified by the chairman.
The chairman tried first to claim the lawyer only wanted to meet with him, and he (chairman) chose not to tell anyone else; but, then the vice chairman came in late to that 8-24-09 meeting, and the chairman had to amend his statement, saying "the lawyer only wanted to meet with the two of us". According to the bill (9-14-09), that "meeting in Paris regarding litigation matter" lasted 1.6 hours, and cost the town of Paris $400, plus $24.75 travel expenses for the lawyer.
The following basic questions belong in the arsenal of the concerned citizen who votes in the town of Paris: (1) How is the financial status of this town being maintained and the future of that status being safeguarded? (2) Whose interests are being served in this town by the current administration?
The Town of Paris has a population of roughly 5000 people, and at last count about 3000 registered voters. Less, often far less, than 1500 of the registered voters regularly vote; even so, when voting takes place, the whole town, the entire membership of the public forum, is then being represented - for better or worse.
So, when there is voting to be done, officials to be elected, ordinances to be requested and examined, budgets to be inspected and approved, municipal policies to be created and evaluated, it would seem prudent to....
Just Say No to manipulation
*of how financial data is reported to the public, e.g., 8-24, interim mgr. Thorne said $800,000 was available for immediate use; but on further inspection the amount was much less;
8-24, when asked what legal expenses were to date, public statement was that there was no tally of expenses to present; but further inspection produced one itemized bill, 7-30-09, stating $1,199.04 paid for such;
9-14, in response to a question re. a subdivision assessment fund, into which developers have been putting $400 per subdivision lot to support new recreational sites, (not fund on-going activities), Thorne reported to the audience, as quoted in Advertiser Democrat
9-17-09, p.4A, "It's in the general ledger. That's why it doesn't show up in your annual report, because it's not a budgeted item."
However, that item most certainly is in the 2007-2008 Town Report, p. 78, under "Subdivision Assessment" [available at the Town Office if you don't have one]. Balance at the end of 2008 shows $39,130, but should be $35,600, the mistake to be corrected in the current audit.
Just Say No to disenfranchising
*citizens' rights by limiting their access to public information, e.g., 7-13-09 and 7-27-09, holding selectmen meetings in a space that severely limited seating capacity for concerned citizens, and agreeing only to move the two August meetings, and so far one in September, to larger quarters under citizen pressure;
9-14-09, the culmination of many weeks of trying to restrict inquiring questions from critics by all but refusing to let citizens officially onto the agenda at all, and only calling on a limited few during the less formal "Citizen Comments," because "We don't want to be blindsided...."
Just Say No to Bullying
*behavior that attempts to intimidate citizens who oppose, e.g., at any and all meetings, cutting citizen questions off midstream if it becomes clear the questions are investigative or critical, though comments from other less threatening citizens are "let through"; threatening to have citizens - who will not stop their questions when they are cut off, or who defend another citizen being cut off - with being thrown out;
at various and random times, after a particularly contentious public discussion or petition, making phone calls to certain citizens to question a citizen's motives;
on one occasion, in the parking lot after the meeting, the "bumping into" and embarrassing of a family member of a vocal critic, by a person in a responsible position who should have known better.
Just Say No to Lying
*behavior that can clearly be proved otherwise, e.g.,8-24-09, in a hearing, trying to track down relevant communication from the town's attorney re. a citizens' petition submitted early July, citizens received 3 totally different answers from the chairman; further investigation the next day provided a different answer yet.
8-13-09, on a litigation item that clearly required the attention of the entire select board because of the critical financial and legal implications for the whole town, it later came to light, in the discussion on 8-24-09, that only 2 selectmen met with the lawyer that day, and no other selectman was ever notified by the chairman.
The chairman tried first to claim the lawyer only wanted to meet with him, and he (chairman) chose not to tell anyone else; but, then the vice chairman came in late to that 8-24-09 meeting, and the chairman had to amend his statement, saying "the lawyer only wanted to meet with the two of us". According to the bill (9-14-09), that "meeting in Paris regarding litigation matter" lasted 1.6 hours, and cost the town of Paris $400, plus $24.75 travel expenses for the lawyer.
The following basic questions belong in the arsenal of the concerned citizen who votes in the town of Paris: (1) How is the financial status of this town being maintained and the future of that status being safeguarded? (2) Whose interests are being served in this town by the current administration?
Monday, September 14, 2009
What Just Happened?
Monday the 14th
70-75 came
to a new place, different feel, many of the same crowd
but new faces, too.
To hear and watch? To participate? To learn? What?
One speaker - or his counterpart - directs, controls, manipulates,
mistaking, or intending? such for leadership.
The new faces - What was it they learned?
Some business was transacted,
appointments made.
New state statutes addressed, explaining
a reasonable Town Committee decision.
Much discussion and then some.
Two selectmen tried to clarify brand new policy of the One
who wished to limit critics speaking.
No group discussion or setting of policy for the future,
but the One said to a specific citizen, "I
would let you be on the agenda [next time], if...."
Questions from a selectman
to locate a letter noted on a bill from lawyer,
such item costing Paris $200.
Nobody knows.
Anything.
John Brushwein, Paris Tax Assessor, knows his stuff,
solid presentation, competent, no manipulation possible.
All five selectmen, equal players,
went with Town Atty. Geoff Hole
to meet in an executive session,
all together, not just 1 or 2 secretly
meeting or corresponding with him at an odd time.
Some issues were not addressed,
except mostly the cost.
A Local Health Officer
job description? advertise?
expectations?
epidemics? Are you serious?
Is there someone running this town?
70-75 came
to a new place, different feel, many of the same crowd
but new faces, too.
To hear and watch? To participate? To learn? What?
One speaker - or his counterpart - directs, controls, manipulates,
mistaking, or intending? such for leadership.
The new faces - What was it they learned?
Some business was transacted,
appointments made.
New state statutes addressed, explaining
a reasonable Town Committee decision.
Much discussion and then some.
Two selectmen tried to clarify brand new policy of the One
who wished to limit critics speaking.
No group discussion or setting of policy for the future,
but the One said to a specific citizen, "I
would let you be on the agenda [next time], if...."
Questions from a selectman
to locate a letter noted on a bill from lawyer,
such item costing Paris $200.
Nobody knows.
Anything.
John Brushwein, Paris Tax Assessor, knows his stuff,
solid presentation, competent, no manipulation possible.
All five selectmen, equal players,
went with Town Atty. Geoff Hole
to meet in an executive session,
all together, not just 1 or 2 secretly
meeting or corresponding with him at an odd time.
Some issues were not addressed,
except mostly the cost.
A Local Health Officer
job description? advertise?
expectations?
epidemics? Are you serious?
Is there someone running this town?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Don't Forget How Important...
...it is for you to attend:
Paris Selectmen's meeting Monday 9-14-09
Paris Elementary School, High Street,
7PM
Concerned about our taxes? Tax Assessor John Brushwein will be there with information.
Concerned about the legal and financial hoopla? Town Attorney Geoff Hole has been asked to attend. And Budget Committee Chairman Forrie Everett will have information on the financial picture, to date.
Curious about who is running the Town of Paris? Come and see if you can figure it out...
Paris Selectmen's meeting Monday 9-14-09
Paris Elementary School, High Street,
7PM
Concerned about our taxes? Tax Assessor John Brushwein will be there with information.
Concerned about the legal and financial hoopla? Town Attorney Geoff Hole has been asked to attend. And Budget Committee Chairman Forrie Everett will have information on the financial picture, to date.
Curious about who is running the Town of Paris? Come and see if you can figure it out...
The Basics about Recall
First, the voters in the town enact an ordinance, like any number of other Maine towns: This is the Tool.
Second, if the voters in town decide they love the job their elected officials are doing for their town, they smile and go about their business: This is the Norm.
Third, if the voters have a mass loss of confidence, over a period of time, because of the quality of the job any of their elected officials is bringing to the job on behalf of the entire town, then the citizens could consider raising a petition to un-elect, or recall one, or, if the situation is really bad, even more than one elected official: This is the Task.
Fourth, if the required number of registered voters, who have lost confidence, sign a petition calling for a recall election, the relevant elected official will be listed on a recall election ballot, and the voters then decide whether the elected official's term is ended prematurely: This is the Result.
Second, if the voters in town decide they love the job their elected officials are doing for their town, they smile and go about their business: This is the Norm.
Third, if the voters have a mass loss of confidence, over a period of time, because of the quality of the job any of their elected officials is bringing to the job on behalf of the entire town, then the citizens could consider raising a petition to un-elect, or recall one, or, if the situation is really bad, even more than one elected official: This is the Task.
Fourth, if the required number of registered voters, who have lost confidence, sign a petition calling for a recall election, the relevant elected official will be listed on a recall election ballot, and the voters then decide whether the elected official's term is ended prematurely: This is the Result.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Nagging Questions Everywhere...
The Norway-Paris Solid Waste Board..."is," according to Paris and Norway town attorney Geoff Hole of Bernstein Shur, "wholly a creature of the towns of Norway and Paris." Proper trash disposal is not only mandated by state law, it is critical to the health and well being of a community; however, for the NPSW Board, trash disposal has become a means of exercising power, manipulation, and dominion. And hidden agendas.
As reported on this site, 9-07-09, the NPSW Board scheduled a special meeting for the morning of 9-10-09, the apparent agenda being to remove one of the directors. Atty. Hole's letter speaks to that issue, so that report must indeed have been true.
Red flag questions re. Thursday's "special" meeting have already been posted on this site, 9-07-09; as was the notice for the sudden, unexplained cancellation late 9-09-09 of that very same "special" meeting.
Now there are brand new questions:
*Why the sudden change of heart?
*How much of a part did Atty. Hole's legal opinion play in the decision for cancelling this meeting?
*Of the 10 selectmen in Norway and Paris, the hiring and firing bodies for this inter-local agreement, exactly how many actually knew anything about plans for a special meeting in the first place?
*Are there hidden agendas?
As reported on this site, 9-07-09, the NPSW Board scheduled a special meeting for the morning of 9-10-09, the apparent agenda being to remove one of the directors. Atty. Hole's letter speaks to that issue, so that report must indeed have been true.
Red flag questions re. Thursday's "special" meeting have already been posted on this site, 9-07-09; as was the notice for the sudden, unexplained cancellation late 9-09-09 of that very same "special" meeting.
Now there are brand new questions:
*Why the sudden change of heart?
*How much of a part did Atty. Hole's legal opinion play in the decision for cancelling this meeting?
*Of the 10 selectmen in Norway and Paris, the hiring and firing bodies for this inter-local agreement, exactly how many actually knew anything about plans for a special meeting in the first place?
*Are there hidden agendas?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Notice: Meeting cancelled…
Norway-Paris Solid Waste special board meeting for 10 a.m. Thursday Sept. 10 has been cancelled. There will be more details to follow.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Citizen Alert: Norway-Paris Solid Waste Special Board Meeting
NPSW Board is planning a special meeting, 10:00a.m., Thursday, September 10th, Paris Town Office. The regularly scheduled monthly meeting would be the third Monday, in the evening. It is reported that the agenda is to remove one of the directors.
Questions that raise a red flag:
*Why would there be a need to meet other than at the regular meeting time?
*Why would this special meeting be in the daytime when regularly employed individuals
could not be present?
*Could there be a self-preservation effort considering this board might be about to undertake a move that is less than "in the spirit" of the Norway-Paris interlocal agreement - recently reaffirmed by the Paris Board of Selectmen at their August 24th meeting?
*Who is running the town(s) here?
*Who is paying for all of this - the NPSW annual budget being in the environs of a half-million dollars?
Questions that raise a red flag:
*Why would there be a need to meet other than at the regular meeting time?
*Why would this special meeting be in the daytime when regularly employed individuals
could not be present?
*Could there be a self-preservation effort considering this board might be about to undertake a move that is less than "in the spirit" of the Norway-Paris interlocal agreement - recently reaffirmed by the Paris Board of Selectmen at their August 24th meeting?
*Who is running the town(s) here?
*Who is paying for all of this - the NPSW annual budget being in the environs of a half-million dollars?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Tales and Distractions
It is a tricky business, this making grand statements about the financial arrangements in the pocketbook of this town. Does the "new direction" for Paris include manufacturing wizardly financial statements out of thin air?
Who did the homework that produced some of the conclusions and financial pronouncements being tossed about these last few weeks? This cavalier flinging of dollar-amounts (never mind information) makes a citizen wonder if the new administration in Paris thinks their constituents don't know anything at all.
Do they suppose that no one will ask questions? That any Paris citizen who takes a little time can't discover actual information for themselves? That voters will forever swallow tales and distractions?
Who did the homework that produced some of the conclusions and financial pronouncements being tossed about these last few weeks? This cavalier flinging of dollar-amounts (never mind information) makes a citizen wonder if the new administration in Paris thinks their constituents don't know anything at all.
Do they suppose that no one will ask questions? That any Paris citizen who takes a little time can't discover actual information for themselves? That voters will forever swallow tales and distractions?
A Second Look
There is much defensive posturing - and inaccurate reporting - around how much town money is available to cover legal costs already incurred as a result of the ill-conceived firing of the previous town manager, not to mention costs still to come.
Interim Town Manager Thorne has repeatedly said he does not yet have a total of Attorney Hole's fees to date on the Jackson case. But the Finance Clerk would have record of checks made and bills would be itemized. This is public record. There will be follow up on this site.
Thorne said [Advertiser Democrat 9-3-09 p.7A] town insurance had not yet denied coverage of the additional points of the suit. This would not be an insignificant amount. Ask Mr. Thorne what he's heard lately.
About all this money available in the budget for legal fees: The Town of Paris budget adopted 6-13-09, lists $21,300 in the budget category "Professional Services." This includes $11,600 for auditing services; $1,700 for tax maps, and $8,000 for legal expenses.
There is a contingency fund of $15,000, though not intended exclusively for legal fees. However, to play devil's advocate, even if a contingency fund was tapped for these costs (that should never have come up in the first place), just how far would the $8,000 and even the whole contingency fund go when we have Town Attorney Hole devoting 2 1/2 hours round trip travel, and at least one hour conferring - with 2 selectmen here, a board meeting or two there? and those phone calls? and the writing of legal opinions? and the faxes? and the emails? and....
Interim Town Manager Thorne has repeatedly said he does not yet have a total of Attorney Hole's fees to date on the Jackson case. But the Finance Clerk would have record of checks made and bills would be itemized. This is public record. There will be follow up on this site.
Thorne said [Advertiser Democrat 9-3-09 p.7A] town insurance had not yet denied coverage of the additional points of the suit. This would not be an insignificant amount. Ask Mr. Thorne what he's heard lately.
About all this money available in the budget for legal fees: The Town of Paris budget adopted 6-13-09, lists $21,300 in the budget category "Professional Services." This includes $11,600 for auditing services; $1,700 for tax maps, and $8,000 for legal expenses.
There is a contingency fund of $15,000, though not intended exclusively for legal fees. However, to play devil's advocate, even if a contingency fund was tapped for these costs (that should never have come up in the first place), just how far would the $8,000 and even the whole contingency fund go when we have Town Attorney Hole devoting 2 1/2 hours round trip travel, and at least one hour conferring - with 2 selectmen here, a board meeting or two there? and those phone calls? and the writing of legal opinions? and the faxes? and the emails? and....
Faulty Reasoning and Flawed Conclusions
At the 8-24-09 selectmen's meeting, when confronted with citizens' questions about the reason(s) for higher tax bills, Interim Town Manager Mike Thorne and Selectman Troy Ripley made 3 statements that should be challenged.
Mr. Thorne says his predecessor "backed out nearly $100,000 in anticipated revenue (from lower excise taxes and a dip in state revenue sharing) in the budget she crafted shortly before being fired." (Advertiser-Democrat, 9-3-09, p.4A).
What is the source for this $100,000 figure? "Backed out" implies that the figure was in something and was later removed to change the budget picture.
The budget we passed in June shows no such thing--and it wouldn't, because such a calculation would be in the revenue budget, which, while it is a public document, is not something many people are aware of.
The revenue budget is used by the town manager to calculate the mil rate for a new fiscal year's taxes. Roughly speaking, it estimates an upcoming fiscal year's revenue based on the prior fiscal year's revenue history. Information is collected until June 30. There is a final estimation in July, used to finalize the revenue budget and set the mil rate, followed by the August commitment of taxes and sending out of tax bills.
Did Mr. Thorne, prior to the commitment of taxes, finalize the revenue budget? Manager Jackson was not allowed to - her work would have been left unfinished. Is that what he used? Ask at the town office. The records used to base the manager's decision are public.
As for Mr. Ripley's blaming the tax increase on "anticipated changes in excise tax collections," [ibid] that's definitely something neither he nor a revenue budget can do: predict, count on, or anticipate the outcome of the November election.
Ripley's statement that "some of the tax hike could be attributed to an increase in the overlay" [ibid] is suspect. Since the tax abatement figure has remained fairly constant over the last few years, and it's such a miniscule part of the overall budget, how could it suddenly be big enough to account for a tax increase?
Voters need to be asking questions.
Mr. Thorne says his predecessor "backed out nearly $100,000 in anticipated revenue (from lower excise taxes and a dip in state revenue sharing) in the budget she crafted shortly before being fired." (Advertiser-Democrat, 9-3-09, p.4A).
What is the source for this $100,000 figure? "Backed out" implies that the figure was in something and was later removed to change the budget picture.
The budget we passed in June shows no such thing--and it wouldn't, because such a calculation would be in the revenue budget, which, while it is a public document, is not something many people are aware of.
The revenue budget is used by the town manager to calculate the mil rate for a new fiscal year's taxes. Roughly speaking, it estimates an upcoming fiscal year's revenue based on the prior fiscal year's revenue history. Information is collected until June 30. There is a final estimation in July, used to finalize the revenue budget and set the mil rate, followed by the August commitment of taxes and sending out of tax bills.
Did Mr. Thorne, prior to the commitment of taxes, finalize the revenue budget? Manager Jackson was not allowed to - her work would have been left unfinished. Is that what he used? Ask at the town office. The records used to base the manager's decision are public.
As for Mr. Ripley's blaming the tax increase on "anticipated changes in excise tax collections," [ibid] that's definitely something neither he nor a revenue budget can do: predict, count on, or anticipate the outcome of the November election.
Ripley's statement that "some of the tax hike could be attributed to an increase in the overlay" [ibid] is suspect. Since the tax abatement figure has remained fairly constant over the last few years, and it's such a miniscule part of the overall budget, how could it suddenly be big enough to account for a tax increase?
Voters need to be asking questions.
Citizen Alert: New Location
Paris Selectboard hearing: 9-14-09, Paris Elementary School, 4 Hathaway Road, S. Paris (i.e., Hathaway Rd. and High St.). Call Town Office, 743-2501, to confirm.
Agenda includes presentation by Tax Assessor John Brushwein. Also scheduled is a visit from the town's attorney, Geoff Hole (reason unclear--Sharon Jackson litigation? Proposed Recall Ordinance?).
Come and see if you can figure out:
Who's running the Town of Paris?
Whose interests are being served?
Agenda includes presentation by Tax Assessor John Brushwein. Also scheduled is a visit from the town's attorney, Geoff Hole (reason unclear--Sharon Jackson litigation? Proposed Recall Ordinance?).
Come and see if you can figure out:
Who's running the Town of Paris?
Whose interests are being served?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)