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?
