...by several pairs of ears:
An envelope...left in the office of the interim manager? An envelope with 5 copies of a resume from an applicant for the new town manager position? Steve Someone...McAllister, that was it.
[editor's note: Mr. McAllister, who resigned in 2004, was the immediate predecessor of recently fired Paris Town Manager Sharon Jackson, and has been in attendance at every meeting of the Paris selectmen for some months.]
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
50% Used Up
Closer to 54%, actually. That would be the amount used from the $8,000 line item for all legal expenses in the town budget passed by Paris voters 6-13-09.
Emergency expenses, rate changes, state of the economy, all possible factors that can claim budgeted funds. The factor that claimed a good chunk of these budgeted funds, however, was a poorly- thought-through decision to dismiss the previous town manager on the personal agenda of a portion of the selectboard, at the very first meeting of one of the newly elected selectmen. The loosely-framed reason was to take the town in "a different direction."
The town manager who was fired has sued for damages; legal discussions may or may not have been shared with the whole selectboard; and the entire town is now paying the unnecessary legal costs of this poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action.
The town has received the following bills from Bernstein Shur, the firm of Town Attorney Geoffrey Hole:
Bills for July ($1,199.04) and August ($1,482.03) appeared in the 10-07-09 posting The Importance of Why on this site. September's two bills come to $1615.32; total for 3 months, $4296.39
As of 9/30/09, after removing $719.50 worth of itemized charges from the 3 bills for other legal issues not related to the law suit, the total unnecessary legal costs to this town for the poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action come to $3576.89. This is roughly 45% of the $8,000. There are some months of costly legal work to go before the court date; and if the 3 selectmen of the 3-2 split vote insist on a trial, there will be even more expenses.
The decision that brought on these costs was unannounced, and not agreed on. And the costs certainly were not budgeted for.
So much for caring about the welfare of the whole town...
Emergency expenses, rate changes, state of the economy, all possible factors that can claim budgeted funds. The factor that claimed a good chunk of these budgeted funds, however, was a poorly- thought-through decision to dismiss the previous town manager on the personal agenda of a portion of the selectboard, at the very first meeting of one of the newly elected selectmen. The loosely-framed reason was to take the town in "a different direction."
The town manager who was fired has sued for damages; legal discussions may or may not have been shared with the whole selectboard; and the entire town is now paying the unnecessary legal costs of this poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action.
The town has received the following bills from Bernstein Shur, the firm of Town Attorney Geoffrey Hole:
Bills for July ($1,199.04) and August ($1,482.03) appeared in the 10-07-09 posting The Importance of Why on this site. September's two bills come to $1615.32; total for 3 months, $4296.39
As of 9/30/09, after removing $719.50 worth of itemized charges from the 3 bills for other legal issues not related to the law suit, the total unnecessary legal costs to this town for the poorly-thought-out, personal-agenda action come to $3576.89. This is roughly 45% of the $8,000. There are some months of costly legal work to go before the court date; and if the 3 selectmen of the 3-2 split vote insist on a trial, there will be even more expenses.
The decision that brought on these costs was unannounced, and not agreed on. And the costs certainly were not budgeted for.
So much for caring about the welfare of the whole town...
Monday, October 26, 2009
Questions Not Asked
6:50 PM, and the room was just about still. 7 PM, and it WAS still. No rustling, chit-chatting, or scuffling of feet. 49 citizens, 2 reporters, and one cameraman facing the 4 Paris selectmen sitting at the front table. People in the audience nodded to each other with knowing gestures and grim expressions.
There was a new dynamic this evening: an air of non-energy.
The October 26th meeting began in the mumble and murmur mode. The audience strained to hear the items in #4, "Accounts Payable". But, of the 3 more talkative Selectmen, 2 seemed pretty much exhausted, and had difficulty getting words past the 2nd row; in fact, spoke in a quiet, conversational tone...to each other, it would seem.
Is this the new ploy? To make the audience feel as if they're not there? That they are inconsequential by trying to discount them?
A frequent supporter of the current majority was recognized to make a particular presentation, and invited to "come up here if you want" [to the front of the room] and speak good and loud! The speaker was determined to be lacking in decibels. He turned his back completely to the 49, and, when urged to speak up by those behind him, addressed only the front table, tossing over his shoulder, "I'm here to address my elected officials tonight. I'm not here to discuss with any of you...I can't speak up. This is the best I can do. Please listen or hear the tape..."
Oh, yes. You can be sure of that. Hidden agendas become absolutely transparent to the camera.
So. Moving on...
22 items on this agenda...19 concerns, several of real merit. Ambitious. In the 4th month of a new administration, voters tend to look for that.
There will most certainly be thorough mention of the agenda items themselves by other factions of our local media. But there is also merit in focusing on what was not asked; what did no one mention, or follow up on?
There was a discussion of the need, and funding, for a new or repaired tank truck for the fire department. Along with a request for Chief Frost to get bids, there was also mention of a $15,000 "Contingency Fund." Then a little nervous laughter, and the changing of the subject. What kind of options are left in our town budget for anything we need, e.g., proper fire fighting equipment, never mind something we are now stuck with because of careless leadership, e.g., costs for a law suit because of a reckless administrative move?
What progress has there been in the search for a new town manager? What discussion for qualifications? Does anyone realize that there are enlightened communities, e.g., Lewiston, Sabattus, for two, that have search committees that include some selectmen along with a number of voters? Who is going to pick this new manager in Paris? Why does that seem such a worrisome thought?
There was a point made about a selectboard member who was closely related to a landowner with a specific interest in the resolution of a matter. Why was that point completely ignored by the selectman in question in his ensuing monologue on how he felt the issue should be decided? What is there about conflict of interest that is so difficult to understand?
So many important questions in need of answers.
There was a new dynamic this evening: an air of non-energy.
The October 26th meeting began in the mumble and murmur mode. The audience strained to hear the items in #4, "Accounts Payable". But, of the 3 more talkative Selectmen, 2 seemed pretty much exhausted, and had difficulty getting words past the 2nd row; in fact, spoke in a quiet, conversational tone...to each other, it would seem.
Is this the new ploy? To make the audience feel as if they're not there? That they are inconsequential by trying to discount them?
A frequent supporter of the current majority was recognized to make a particular presentation, and invited to "come up here if you want" [to the front of the room] and speak good and loud! The speaker was determined to be lacking in decibels. He turned his back completely to the 49, and, when urged to speak up by those behind him, addressed only the front table, tossing over his shoulder, "I'm here to address my elected officials tonight. I'm not here to discuss with any of you...I can't speak up. This is the best I can do. Please listen or hear the tape..."
Oh, yes. You can be sure of that. Hidden agendas become absolutely transparent to the camera.
So. Moving on...
22 items on this agenda...19 concerns, several of real merit. Ambitious. In the 4th month of a new administration, voters tend to look for that.
There will most certainly be thorough mention of the agenda items themselves by other factions of our local media. But there is also merit in focusing on what was not asked; what did no one mention, or follow up on?
There was a discussion of the need, and funding, for a new or repaired tank truck for the fire department. Along with a request for Chief Frost to get bids, there was also mention of a $15,000 "Contingency Fund." Then a little nervous laughter, and the changing of the subject. What kind of options are left in our town budget for anything we need, e.g., proper fire fighting equipment, never mind something we are now stuck with because of careless leadership, e.g., costs for a law suit because of a reckless administrative move?
What progress has there been in the search for a new town manager? What discussion for qualifications? Does anyone realize that there are enlightened communities, e.g., Lewiston, Sabattus, for two, that have search committees that include some selectmen along with a number of voters? Who is going to pick this new manager in Paris? Why does that seem such a worrisome thought?
There was a point made about a selectboard member who was closely related to a landowner with a specific interest in the resolution of a matter. Why was that point completely ignored by the selectman in question in his ensuing monologue on how he felt the issue should be decided? What is there about conflict of interest that is so difficult to understand?
So many important questions in need of answers.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Citizen Reminder...
Monday, October 26, 7pm, Paris selectmen meet. Call 743-2501 to be sure of place.
The last meeting was the quick meeting. (For such a quick meeting, it provided a lot of material for this blog: see the posts below, from "Back to Business as Usual," through "An Agenda for an Agenda.")
The meeting on the 26th will be 7 days from Election Day Nov. 3. This meeting will, perhaps, be more lengthy.
The last meeting was the quick meeting. (For such a quick meeting, it provided a lot of material for this blog: see the posts below, from "Back to Business as Usual," through "An Agenda for an Agenda.")
The meeting on the 26th will be 7 days from Election Day Nov. 3. This meeting will, perhaps, be more lengthy.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Back to Business as Usual
The following comment was posted on this site in "Overheard":
"This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." [Selectboard Ch. Ivey, The Paris Reporter, 8-04-08]
"This" = citizens' outrage at:
*a calculated firing;
*no plan for a "different direction";
*a private agenda, featuring decisions made behind closed doors;
*exclusion of some board members in critical decisions;
*the welfare of the whole town not being represented or considered.
"home" = where extremely concerned citizens have no intention whatsoever of staying.
And now, 12 weeks later:
"business as usual" = Read the following post.
"This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." [Selectboard Ch. Ivey, The Paris Reporter, 8-04-08]
"This" = citizens' outrage at:
*a calculated firing;
*no plan for a "different direction";
*a private agenda, featuring decisions made behind closed doors;
*exclusion of some board members in critical decisions;
*the welfare of the whole town not being represented or considered.
"home" = where extremely concerned citizens have no intention whatsoever of staying.
And now, 12 weeks later:
"business as usual" = Read the following post.
Slip of the Tongue? Careless Syntax?
Thursday 10-08-09, The Paris Reporter posted "A Calculated Distraction," re. the quickie meeting that got slipped under the door all so smoothly. In that article, referring to the process for looking for a new town manager, there was the observation that there appeared "a great need for haste."
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a dvd must get 1000 plus. In reviewing the dvd of that meeting taped by NPC-TV, just how much haste becomes clearer. Being able to see - and replay - body language and head turns, "fiddly" fingers and waving hands, one's attention is drawn to comments sometimes missed when just sitting in the audience.
Consider the following dialogue excerpted from 10-08-09 meeting at Paris Town Office:
Ch. Ivey: ......need to make a motion....
Sel. Ripley: Mike made a ...with his memo his desire to have someone on board prior to the new budget system warrants us to...ah...and as you have...we've started...we've put the ad out...we need to move forward in that process.
Ch. I: ...need to make a motion....
How do we want to do it?
Sel. Glover: You say you have put an ad out? or you're going to put an ad out?
Ch. I: [smooth segue] I dunno... [turns to interim town mgr.] Has that ad been put out?
Interim T. Mgr.: No.
Ch. I.: [casual glance back to Sel. G] I've spoken to 'm about it.
There's use of the past tense, here. Mr. R says "you have" "we've started" "we've put." Slip of the tongue? Careless syntax? Thinking out loud? What?
One outspoken selectman out of town for the week; the other asking did you or didn't you; and one deceived public.
Could there have been any prearrangement by anyone before this meeting?
Has there also been a candidate prearranged?
Why would anyone want that?
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a dvd must get 1000 plus. In reviewing the dvd of that meeting taped by NPC-TV, just how much haste becomes clearer. Being able to see - and replay - body language and head turns, "fiddly" fingers and waving hands, one's attention is drawn to comments sometimes missed when just sitting in the audience.
Consider the following dialogue excerpted from 10-08-09 meeting at Paris Town Office:
Ch. Ivey: ......need to make a motion....
Sel. Ripley: Mike made a ...with his memo his desire to have someone on board prior to the new budget system warrants us to...ah...and as you have...we've started...we've put the ad out...we need to move forward in that process.
Ch. I: ...need to make a motion....
How do we want to do it?
Sel. Glover: You say you have put an ad out? or you're going to put an ad out?
Ch. I: [smooth segue] I dunno... [turns to interim town mgr.] Has that ad been put out?
Interim T. Mgr.: No.
Ch. I.: [casual glance back to Sel. G] I've spoken to 'm about it.
There's use of the past tense, here. Mr. R says "you have" "we've started" "we've put." Slip of the tongue? Careless syntax? Thinking out loud? What?
One outspoken selectman out of town for the week; the other asking did you or didn't you; and one deceived public.
Could there have been any prearrangement by anyone before this meeting?
Has there also been a candidate prearranged?
Why would anyone want that?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Don't be left out!
Voters are the strength of a town - or city, or state, or nation. Although it doesn't always feel that way, we voters are what make democracy work. Why else would so much money and energy be packed into trying to influence us to support a certain cause or candidate?
Influencing and defining choices are what it's all about. Voters, in the best of situations, in whatever majority they can effect, have the power to shape the future; to promote ideas and to defeat ideas.
This November 3 Election Day, Paris voters have a set of choices at the state level, as well as a local question of law - a proposed Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine - that will effect how the town of Paris intends itself to be governed. This site will present information - in fact, has already posted at least two articles (1) , (2) - on the proposed ordinance and its implications for Paris.
Paris Voters:
If you are new to town, or have recently registered to vote in the last few weeks or months, take time to check at the town office to be sure your name is on the voter list.
Just filling out a voter registration card is not enough; names need to be transferred to the actual voter list that the ballot clerks work from on Election Day. If you know someone in the above category, urge them make certain their name is on the voter list.
Paris Voters:
You can vote early!
Although it is a critical provision for concerned citizens, the option to vote early is not just for people who will be out of town or who cannot get to the polls, for a variety of reasons, on Election Day.
Voting early can also provide voters more than just the one day to get to the polling place, and increase the chance that voting on a contested topic actually happens, by encouraging voters to "vote right now, before you forget!"
There is a specific procedure for keeping track of absentee ballots, just as there is for regular ballots. Up until the time the absentee and early-voter ballots are processed, the public may ask to see the list of voters who have taken out and returned ballots [Applications and Envelopes as Public Records, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §764 and Procedure for Issuing Absentee Ballots, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §753-B]. Editor's note: Busy clerks will need a little extra time to facilitate such a request.
No matter how our votes are cast, it is the voting process, itself, that matters. It is the voters who are intended to make the choices. We expect that, and we must always insist on that.
Influencing and defining choices are what it's all about. Voters, in the best of situations, in whatever majority they can effect, have the power to shape the future; to promote ideas and to defeat ideas.
This November 3 Election Day, Paris voters have a set of choices at the state level, as well as a local question of law - a proposed Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine - that will effect how the town of Paris intends itself to be governed. This site will present information - in fact, has already posted at least two articles (1) , (2) - on the proposed ordinance and its implications for Paris.
Paris Voters:
If you are new to town, or have recently registered to vote in the last few weeks or months, take time to check at the town office to be sure your name is on the voter list.
Just filling out a voter registration card is not enough; names need to be transferred to the actual voter list that the ballot clerks work from on Election Day. If you know someone in the above category, urge them make certain their name is on the voter list.
Paris Voters:
You can vote early!
Although it is a critical provision for concerned citizens, the option to vote early is not just for people who will be out of town or who cannot get to the polls, for a variety of reasons, on Election Day.
Voting early can also provide voters more than just the one day to get to the polling place, and increase the chance that voting on a contested topic actually happens, by encouraging voters to "vote right now, before you forget!"
There is a specific procedure for keeping track of absentee ballots, just as there is for regular ballots. Up until the time the absentee and early-voter ballots are processed, the public may ask to see the list of voters who have taken out and returned ballots [Applications and Envelopes as Public Records, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §764 and Procedure for Issuing Absentee Ballots, Title 21-A M.R.S.A. §753-B]. Editor's note: Busy clerks will need a little extra time to facilitate such a request.
No matter how our votes are cast, it is the voting process, itself, that matters. It is the voters who are intended to make the choices. We expect that, and we must always insist on that.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Why the Rush, Gentlemen?
On Thursday 10-08-09 Vice Chairman of Paris Selectboard Ripley set out procedure for going out to find a new full time town manager for Paris. It seems Interim Thorne will be retiring - from Paris - 2-2010.
Consider: the Town of Paris is in a "situation" that makes hiring a manager in the middle of a lawsuit contesting the legality of the termination of an existing contract rife with possibilities for creating another suit by signing a contract with a new manager before finishing with the current "situation."
What is the wisdom in signing up a long term manager if that individual's position could possibly become null and void by a court ruling against the town in a suit as mentioned above?
Consider: Why the rush? What is to be gained? What could be something that a back might need to be covered against? Is there something that the public at large is not privy to?
It is indeed true that there is no requirement in municipal law for the way a town manager position should be advertised, except, of course the federal requirement for equal opportunity employment that simply makes it plain there can be no discrimination. But there is solid business practice, and there is common sense.
Consider this nebulous "different direction" that none of the "firing three" selectmen has ever felt like defining - since the instant birth of that term on the night of "the firing" 4 months ago. No explanation, despite the fact that firing has changed - and is threatening - the financial landscape of our town. How much of this lickety-split search procedure will focus on an understanding of, better yet, an unspoken agreement with, this different direction?
Consider the pieces missing from Selectman Ripley's procedure (above) for finding a new manager. The qualifications for manager should be, specifically....what? Or, perhaps, not what?
Consider: what was so unacceptable in the former town manager's job performance that she had to be fired the very minute Mr. R got on board - with nary a word since from anyone on that board of selectmen about why. Whatever that undefined quality was that got Sharon Jackson fired, how do the three plan to insure that quality will never again be found inside the Paris town manager's office? Will that plan also be a secret from the public?
Exactly how many days do you want this full time manager, Mr. R? Are we talking a 32 hour work week? More? Less? When this individual gets pulled out of the proverbial hat, what salary will be offered? You have that all worked out, do you, with the figures in the budget? The cash flow is in complete control....you say?
And the reason you needed to launch this plan at a special meeting, rather than your regularly scheduled selectmen's meeting? You were hoping the voters in which town might not notice....?
Consider: the Town of Paris is in a "situation" that makes hiring a manager in the middle of a lawsuit contesting the legality of the termination of an existing contract rife with possibilities for creating another suit by signing a contract with a new manager before finishing with the current "situation."
What is the wisdom in signing up a long term manager if that individual's position could possibly become null and void by a court ruling against the town in a suit as mentioned above?
Consider: Why the rush? What is to be gained? What could be something that a back might need to be covered against? Is there something that the public at large is not privy to?
It is indeed true that there is no requirement in municipal law for the way a town manager position should be advertised, except, of course the federal requirement for equal opportunity employment that simply makes it plain there can be no discrimination. But there is solid business practice, and there is common sense.
Consider this nebulous "different direction" that none of the "firing three" selectmen has ever felt like defining - since the instant birth of that term on the night of "the firing" 4 months ago. No explanation, despite the fact that firing has changed - and is threatening - the financial landscape of our town. How much of this lickety-split search procedure will focus on an understanding of, better yet, an unspoken agreement with, this different direction?
Consider the pieces missing from Selectman Ripley's procedure (above) for finding a new manager. The qualifications for manager should be, specifically....what? Or, perhaps, not what?
Consider: what was so unacceptable in the former town manager's job performance that she had to be fired the very minute Mr. R got on board - with nary a word since from anyone on that board of selectmen about why. Whatever that undefined quality was that got Sharon Jackson fired, how do the three plan to insure that quality will never again be found inside the Paris town manager's office? Will that plan also be a secret from the public?
Exactly how many days do you want this full time manager, Mr. R? Are we talking a 32 hour work week? More? Less? When this individual gets pulled out of the proverbial hat, what salary will be offered? You have that all worked out, do you, with the figures in the budget? The cash flow is in complete control....you say?
And the reason you needed to launch this plan at a special meeting, rather than your regularly scheduled selectmen's meeting? You were hoping the voters in which town might not notice....?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Calculated Distraction
"... waiver the bylaws for this one time, and one time only" - Vice Chair Ripley.
[Town of Paris, Selectmen's bylaws, Section 9: "These bylaws can be waived on any occasion by majority vote of the Board...."]
Convenient. That way a selectman, who knows and follows the bylaws, can be "trapped by his own words" by opposing a vote brought about by tricky maneuvering. The situation will be calculated to look like the other selectmen have an earnest desire to do "the right thing," but the opposing selectman does not.
Background:
Because there are some decisions that the powers that be want to make but know will not be popular, this "special meeting" was arranged to happen while one critical and straightforward selectman was known to be out of town, and the second, equally straightforward and tenacious selectman was not in on the plan, even though he was in town and, in the end, was notified. Never mind the public. It has been said the interim town manager didn't even know.
To muddy the waters even further, the agenda for a special meeting by definition can include - and do business on - only those items as advertised.
So, here's a good plan to insure the public is distracted from the purpose of the questionable meeting: get the sympathy of the audience, by finding a real need that must be met - such as approval of a payroll warrant ( never mind that could be done next week, as originally planned). Next, manage for the straightforward and tenacious selectman, the sole dissenting voter on the board attending tonight, to be made to look as bad as possible to the audience, because he will most certainly not vote for things that are done for the wrong reason, even if it makes him look bad.
4:50 pm Thursday
poorly advertised quickly thought up "special" meeting.
Even so: 41 Paris voters, 2 reporters, seated in town office,
front table vacant.
Chair strolls in, notes crowd, scowls more than usual,
paces near table, flips open phone, scowls, dials.
Moments later police chief shows up
Stands amiably by door.
Selectman 1 arrives
NPC-TV cameraman sets up.
Enter Interim Town Mgr, 2,3,4 selectmen.
Meeting starts, progresses...
Chairman I: Item 3 - approval of warrant item....
Selectman G: Point of order!
...had a regularly scheduled meeting next week...
...notice I received specified 2 items, not 3rd item.
...bylaws say "No business may be conducted that isn't...."
Ch. I: We didn't approve a scheduled meeting for next week
...an oversight on all our parts...
Reporter: We've ["Advertiser Democrat"] been advised by the town clerk that there was a meeting next Tuesday.
Ch. I: ...that's not my conversation I had with her....
interruption: Selectman R: I move we pay warrants....
Sel. G: Point of order - You know the rules, and you still...
Sel. R: I know what you're doing, Ray..you're..you're raising a point of order....
[back and forth and back and forth]
Sel. R: Help me out here; what do we need to do to be able to approve these warrants?
Sel. G: That's for you to do! I'm not going to do your work for you.
Sel. R: motion...waiver the bylaws for this one time and one time only, that we may add this item to the agenda.
[Vote takes place and passes, Selectman G stands his ground.]
Starting the process
Looking for a new town manager, M.Thorne will retire in February.
Discussion hovers around advertising.
And, it would appear, a great need for haste.
Ch. I: Do we have any ads out yet?
Sel. G: ...recommend MMA listing...I hope you are looking for a qualified candidate?
Ch. I: [re. "you" are looking]You're amongst us, Ray, so it's not we, it's you, too, you're on the board of selectmen
Sel. G: I know that's my desire [re. the qualified candidate] but I'm not sure about your's.
Ch. I: But we...I..didn't ask for your opinion, either, so...
The Crowd: ooooooooooo....
Ch. I: Quiet please
Sel. R: I make a motion that we put an ad process together and collect résumés and on Fridays, weekly, we review the ones that have come in - and any of us - Raymond, Lloyd, Glen, you, see anything you like then we schedule an interview for the following week. That's a motion.
Discussion continues, unravels,
one or two cogent thoughts emerge,
crowd is mesmerized.
Sel. R: [repeating motion] We advertise, we collect résumés, peruse them, and if anybody sees anything they like, set up an interview with..the following week..and we'll do that until such time as we....[sentence left unfinished]
[The reader will note that there was no mention of hiring, salary, timeline, what kind of qualifications, planet of origin, animal, vegetable or mineral; just a great deal of LET'S GET THIS DONE. ASAP.]
Item Five.
Sel. R: I'm reading this motion exactly from what Geoffrey Hole gave us.
Ch. I: To do?
Sel. R: Yes. [reads from paper] I move that we ratify the action taken at our June 22, 2009 meeting to terminate the manager's contract, without cause.
Selectmen Y.: Second!
Ch. I: Discussion?
Sel. G: Yes! I just want it to be known that I was opposed to the original action, and I'm opposed to this action, and I am voting No.
Ch. I: Okay.
[trap: ready]
Sel. R: So, you're going to go against what the town attorney recommends us to do?
[trap: set]
Sel.G: That's correct.
[gotcha]
Sel. R: Okay. I..just make sure we have that as a ...have that.. a.. noted in the minutes that he's going against what the town attorney recommended.
Ch. I: All in favor?
Vote was passed, 3-1
Selectman G stood his ground.
The end.
[Readers are reminded that, on this site in recent posts, there has been discussion of, and links to, further information on "ratifying."]
[Town of Paris, Selectmen's bylaws, Section 9: "These bylaws can be waived on any occasion by majority vote of the Board...."]
Convenient. That way a selectman, who knows and follows the bylaws, can be "trapped by his own words" by opposing a vote brought about by tricky maneuvering. The situation will be calculated to look like the other selectmen have an earnest desire to do "the right thing," but the opposing selectman does not.
Background:
Because there are some decisions that the powers that be want to make but know will not be popular, this "special meeting" was arranged to happen while one critical and straightforward selectman was known to be out of town, and the second, equally straightforward and tenacious selectman was not in on the plan, even though he was in town and, in the end, was notified. Never mind the public. It has been said the interim town manager didn't even know.
To muddy the waters even further, the agenda for a special meeting by definition can include - and do business on - only those items as advertised.
So, here's a good plan to insure the public is distracted from the purpose of the questionable meeting: get the sympathy of the audience, by finding a real need that must be met - such as approval of a payroll warrant ( never mind that could be done next week, as originally planned). Next, manage for the straightforward and tenacious selectman, the sole dissenting voter on the board attending tonight, to be made to look as bad as possible to the audience, because he will most certainly not vote for things that are done for the wrong reason, even if it makes him look bad.
4:50 pm Thursday
poorly advertised quickly thought up "special" meeting.
Even so: 41 Paris voters, 2 reporters, seated in town office,
front table vacant.
Chair strolls in, notes crowd, scowls more than usual,
paces near table, flips open phone, scowls, dials.
Moments later police chief shows up
Stands amiably by door.
Selectman 1 arrives
NPC-TV cameraman sets up.
Enter Interim Town Mgr, 2,3,4 selectmen.
Meeting starts, progresses...
Chairman I: Item 3 - approval of warrant item....
Selectman G: Point of order!
...had a regularly scheduled meeting next week...
...notice I received specified 2 items, not 3rd item.
...bylaws say "No business may be conducted that isn't...."
Ch. I: We didn't approve a scheduled meeting for next week
...an oversight on all our parts...
Reporter: We've ["Advertiser Democrat"] been advised by the town clerk that there was a meeting next Tuesday.
Ch. I: ...that's not my conversation I had with her....
interruption: Selectman R: I move we pay warrants....
Sel. G: Point of order - You know the rules, and you still...
Sel. R: I know what you're doing, Ray..you're..you're raising a point of order....
[back and forth and back and forth]
Sel. R: Help me out here; what do we need to do to be able to approve these warrants?
Sel. G: That's for you to do! I'm not going to do your work for you.
Sel. R: motion...waiver the bylaws for this one time and one time only, that we may add this item to the agenda.
[Vote takes place and passes, Selectman G stands his ground.]
Starting the process
Looking for a new town manager, M.Thorne will retire in February.
Discussion hovers around advertising.
And, it would appear, a great need for haste.
Ch. I: Do we have any ads out yet?
Sel. G: ...recommend MMA listing...I hope you are looking for a qualified candidate?
Ch. I: [re. "you" are looking]You're amongst us, Ray, so it's not we, it's you, too, you're on the board of selectmen
Sel. G: I know that's my desire [re. the qualified candidate] but I'm not sure about your's.
Ch. I: But we...I..didn't ask for your opinion, either, so...
The Crowd: ooooooooooo....
Ch. I: Quiet please
Sel. R: I make a motion that we put an ad process together and collect résumés and on Fridays, weekly, we review the ones that have come in - and any of us - Raymond, Lloyd, Glen, you, see anything you like then we schedule an interview for the following week. That's a motion.
Discussion continues, unravels,
one or two cogent thoughts emerge,
crowd is mesmerized.
Sel. R: [repeating motion] We advertise, we collect résumés, peruse them, and if anybody sees anything they like, set up an interview with..the following week..and we'll do that until such time as we....[sentence left unfinished]
[The reader will note that there was no mention of hiring, salary, timeline, what kind of qualifications, planet of origin, animal, vegetable or mineral; just a great deal of LET'S GET THIS DONE. ASAP.]
Item Five.
Sel. R: I'm reading this motion exactly from what Geoffrey Hole gave us.
Ch. I: To do?
Sel. R: Yes. [reads from paper] I move that we ratify the action taken at our June 22, 2009 meeting to terminate the manager's contract, without cause.
Selectmen Y.: Second!
Ch. I: Discussion?
Sel. G: Yes! I just want it to be known that I was opposed to the original action, and I'm opposed to this action, and I am voting No.
Ch. I: Okay.
[trap: ready]
Sel. R: So, you're going to go against what the town attorney recommends us to do?
[trap: set]
Sel.G: That's correct.
[gotcha]
Sel. R: Okay. I..just make sure we have that as a ...have that.. a.. noted in the minutes that he's going against what the town attorney recommended.
Ch. I: All in favor?
Vote was passed, 3-1
Selectman G stood his ground.
The end.
[Readers are reminded that, on this site in recent posts, there has been discussion of, and links to, further information on "ratifying."]
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Importance of Why
The scrambling to scrape together a special selectmen's meeting at the Paris Town Office before everyone discovers it's happening - including one selectman out of town for the week- reminds one of the importance of always being ready to ask, "why?"
There are guidelines, of course, to how public bodies are intended to publicize meetings. Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Sec. 406 Public notice, states "notice shall be given in ample time to allow public attendance..."; the Maine Municipal Officer's Manual, Ch.3 Executive Functions of the Municipal Officers, p.26 mentions the public being given adequate notice, and further gives a definition for what constitutes a "special" or "emergency" meeting; The Bylaws of The Board of Municipal Officers of the Town of Paris, Maine, Sec. 4 Meetings, pp. 2-3 refers to special meetings, and "notice thereof ... to each member of the Board and to the local media at least 48 hours in advance..."
Questions: Ch. 3, MMA Municipal Officer's Manual, p.26 (see above), mentions "Generally, business that can not be postponed are subjects of special/emergency meetings." There is nothing in the 2 items on Thursday's agenda that could not be postponed until the next regularly scheduled selectman's meeting....
Why the urgency? What needs to be accomplished in front of the smallest audience possible? And that would be because.....?
Consider the foot-dragging and roadblock-throwing to prevent a recall ordinance from being even being put on a ballot. A recall ordinance is simply a tool, part of many Maine towns' arsenal of municipal tools; it is for worst-case-scenario use by voters who have no other way to demand accountability from their elected officials.
Why the fear of such an ordinance? Is there a general mistrust of voters in general? Or perhaps of the intelligence of the voters? Is it a desire to control - to shape - the thinking of constituents to a private agenda? Is there worry that "I might be the one being recalled if this goes through?"
As reflected in 7-09 and 8-09 bills from Bernstein and Shur, and judging from various responses to voters' questions for selectmen at meetings, conversations with the town attorney are happening and the town is being billed for them, but not all selectmen are privy to these communications - they are only given information second hand, if at all. This raises a question of whether the best interests of the entire town are being served.
Why is there a picture emerging of 2 selectmen who have an agenda that might not be in the best interests of the entire town? Are there things that cannot be shared up front with all selectmen, and handled openly as proper business at a meeting with the public? Are there things that need to be hidden because they might not go down well with the voters?
Voter questions are not encouraged at public meetings, especially if a voter challenges or refuses to accept an answer of non-information. Often-frustrated voters have been shouted at: "Sit down!" "You're done!" "Do you want to go home?" "I'll have you removed!" "I'm only going to tell you this one time...."
Why would an individual running a meeting, never mind a town, think that refusing to give a straight answer and bullying the question-asker would stop the public from finding out what is necessary to be found out? Is there something the public should not know? Do they not realize that their treatment of the voters makes it look like there is somethng to hide? Will this treatment stop the question-askers? (What do you think....)
There are guidelines, of course, to how public bodies are intended to publicize meetings. Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Sec. 406 Public notice, states "notice shall be given in ample time to allow public attendance..."; the Maine Municipal Officer's Manual, Ch.3 Executive Functions of the Municipal Officers, p.26 mentions the public being given adequate notice, and further gives a definition for what constitutes a "special" or "emergency" meeting; The Bylaws of The Board of Municipal Officers of the Town of Paris, Maine, Sec. 4 Meetings, pp. 2-3 refers to special meetings, and "notice thereof ... to each member of the Board and to the local media at least 48 hours in advance..."
Questions: Ch. 3, MMA Municipal Officer's Manual, p.26 (see above), mentions "Generally, business that can not be postponed are subjects of special/emergency meetings." There is nothing in the 2 items on Thursday's agenda that could not be postponed until the next regularly scheduled selectman's meeting....
Why the urgency? What needs to be accomplished in front of the smallest audience possible? And that would be because.....?
Consider the foot-dragging and roadblock-throwing to prevent a recall ordinance from being even being put on a ballot. A recall ordinance is simply a tool, part of many Maine towns' arsenal of municipal tools; it is for worst-case-scenario use by voters who have no other way to demand accountability from their elected officials.
Why the fear of such an ordinance? Is there a general mistrust of voters in general? Or perhaps of the intelligence of the voters? Is it a desire to control - to shape - the thinking of constituents to a private agenda? Is there worry that "I might be the one being recalled if this goes through?"
As reflected in 7-09 and 8-09 bills from Bernstein and Shur, and judging from various responses to voters' questions for selectmen at meetings, conversations with the town attorney are happening and the town is being billed for them, but not all selectmen are privy to these communications - they are only given information second hand, if at all. This raises a question of whether the best interests of the entire town are being served.
Why is there a picture emerging of 2 selectmen who have an agenda that might not be in the best interests of the entire town? Are there things that cannot be shared up front with all selectmen, and handled openly as proper business at a meeting with the public? Are there things that need to be hidden because they might not go down well with the voters?
Voter questions are not encouraged at public meetings, especially if a voter challenges or refuses to accept an answer of non-information. Often-frustrated voters have been shouted at: "Sit down!" "You're done!" "Do you want to go home?" "I'll have you removed!" "I'm only going to tell you this one time...."
Why would an individual running a meeting, never mind a town, think that refusing to give a straight answer and bullying the question-asker would stop the public from finding out what is necessary to be found out? Is there something the public should not know? Do they not realize that their treatment of the voters makes it look like there is somethng to hide? Will this treatment stop the question-askers? (What do you think....)
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Agenda for an Agenda
To the Paris voters who can get to the lickety-split surprise selectmen meeting 10-08-09 at 5 p.m. (voters who will probably have to stand outside because there is not going to be nearly enough room for all the folks who are realizing more and more what a certain 3 selectmen are up to and are sick and tired of it): be aware that there are only 5 items on the agenda.
It is immediately apparent that there is no item for citizen comments... What? You're shocked?
Most likely citizens were not anticipated. Or hoped for. Probably not even the interim town manager knew ahead of time - he hasn't been around much at the office this week. Certainly two selectmen didn't - one heard after the ad was called in to local papers, and the other is out of town - for the week. Tricky, that. Cards work better in one's favor if they're stacked, after all.
Three of the five agenda items are Call to Order; Pledge of Allegiance; and Adjourn. Space for 2 more...and they're meaty: #3. Discussion and action on hiring a new Town Manager. Best to do this when no one is looking. Saves all those pesky questions. Questions that will most certainly be addresseed on this site.
And #4. Ratification of the June 22nd vote to terminate Sharon Jackson's contract. According to the legal dictionary at Refdesk.com (an online reference site that includes a variety of specific sources), ratification is "The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed." Further, "The ratification of a lawful contract has a retroactive effect, and binds the principal from its date...the ratification is equivalent to an original authority."
The operative word in the definition above is "lawful".
No amount of ratifying or anything else can make an illegal act legal. And if the 3-2 vote to terminate former Mgr. Jackson's contract on 6-22-09 was legal, why go to all the trouble of ratifying it?
Perhaps that falls into the category that Selectman Ripley likes to call "one lawyer's opinion?" Especially if it's the opinion you're looking for.
It's not easy to know exactly how the Town of Paris is being advised by Atty. Hole, because most conversations have been limited to Ivey, Ripley, and sometimes Thorne. In addition, it's hard to be sure that Atty. Hole is getting the full response of the entire board, or even all of the facts. (See previous sentence.)
So, just to play devil's advocate, if Mr. Ripley's "one lawyer" happened to be misinformed, and the ratification [which is binding] locks the town into a new date of termination, 10-08-09, instead of 6-22-09, as the 3 original initiators of the termination appear to be hoping, the town will be liable for an additional $75 per week back to July 1; benefits; back pay that's already in arrears from the original settlement; insurance; probably pretty close to $30,000 more.
The Town of Paris is not likely to know for several months just how much this action - indeed, the entire raft of actions, sailing off into the New Direction - is going to cost the taxpayers. Or how long it will take us to pay it off.
[FYI in this legal dispute, barring any intervening settlement agreement: discovery (each side's lawyer looking at the other side's evidence) and depositions (questioning of each individual separately by the other side's lawyer) are to be done by mid-February 2010, and if necessary, trial will occur sometime after April 2010.]
Meeting on Thursday looks to be pretty short. Not much discussion needed; anyway, most certainly not from us, the bill payers. Clearly the decisive members of our board of selectmen have already made up their decisive minds.
Come to watch. And listen. They're not likely to let citizens speak.
5 PM Thursday 10-08-09, town office. Don't be discouraged if some of us have to stand in the parking lot. The decisive members of our board are still not getting that we just won't go away; that this town belongs to All Of Us.
It is immediately apparent that there is no item for citizen comments... What? You're shocked?
Most likely citizens were not anticipated. Or hoped for. Probably not even the interim town manager knew ahead of time - he hasn't been around much at the office this week. Certainly two selectmen didn't - one heard after the ad was called in to local papers, and the other is out of town - for the week. Tricky, that. Cards work better in one's favor if they're stacked, after all.
Three of the five agenda items are Call to Order; Pledge of Allegiance; and Adjourn. Space for 2 more...and they're meaty: #3. Discussion and action on hiring a new Town Manager. Best to do this when no one is looking. Saves all those pesky questions. Questions that will most certainly be addresseed on this site.
And #4. Ratification of the June 22nd vote to terminate Sharon Jackson's contract. According to the legal dictionary at Refdesk.com (an online reference site that includes a variety of specific sources), ratification is "The confirmation or adoption of an act that has already been performed." Further, "The ratification of a lawful contract has a retroactive effect, and binds the principal from its date...the ratification is equivalent to an original authority."
The operative word in the definition above is "lawful".
No amount of ratifying or anything else can make an illegal act legal. And if the 3-2 vote to terminate former Mgr. Jackson's contract on 6-22-09 was legal, why go to all the trouble of ratifying it?
Perhaps that falls into the category that Selectman Ripley likes to call "one lawyer's opinion?" Especially if it's the opinion you're looking for.
It's not easy to know exactly how the Town of Paris is being advised by Atty. Hole, because most conversations have been limited to Ivey, Ripley, and sometimes Thorne. In addition, it's hard to be sure that Atty. Hole is getting the full response of the entire board, or even all of the facts. (See previous sentence.)
So, just to play devil's advocate, if Mr. Ripley's "one lawyer" happened to be misinformed, and the ratification [which is binding] locks the town into a new date of termination, 10-08-09, instead of 6-22-09, as the 3 original initiators of the termination appear to be hoping, the town will be liable for an additional $75 per week back to July 1; benefits; back pay that's already in arrears from the original settlement; insurance; probably pretty close to $30,000 more.
The Town of Paris is not likely to know for several months just how much this action - indeed, the entire raft of actions, sailing off into the New Direction - is going to cost the taxpayers. Or how long it will take us to pay it off.
[FYI in this legal dispute, barring any intervening settlement agreement: discovery (each side's lawyer looking at the other side's evidence) and depositions (questioning of each individual separately by the other side's lawyer) are to be done by mid-February 2010, and if necessary, trial will occur sometime after April 2010.]
Meeting on Thursday looks to be pretty short. Not much discussion needed; anyway, most certainly not from us, the bill payers. Clearly the decisive members of our board of selectmen have already made up their decisive minds.
Come to watch. And listen. They're not likely to let citizens speak.
5 PM Thursday 10-08-09, town office. Don't be discouraged if some of us have to stand in the parking lot. The decisive members of our board are still not getting that we just won't go away; that this town belongs to All Of Us.
Citizen Alert!!!
A special meeting of Paris Selectmen has been called for Thursday, October 8. Reported agenda is to include hiring a new town manager, and something about a re-firing of former Town Manager Sharon Jackson.
An interesting aside is that Selectman Skip Herrick had planned to be, and is, in Georgia all of this week. Fewer around the head table, it would seem....
PLEASE COME IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN - AND BRING A FRIEND.
THURSDAY, 5 PM , PARIS TOWN OFFICE.
An interesting aside is that Selectman Skip Herrick had planned to be, and is, in Georgia all of this week. Fewer around the head table, it would seem....
PLEASE COME IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN - AND BRING A FRIEND.
THURSDAY, 5 PM , PARIS TOWN OFFICE.
Monday, October 5, 2009
It's Time, Paris...
Ballots are ready, and Paris voters can vote on November 3rd; or they can go down to the town office and vote any time the town office is open, starting Monday October 5. Call 743-2501 to double check hours.
The issues are important, statewide as well as locally, and voting early is a very effective way to make a responsible statement. A voter can just go into the office and vote there in a place off to the side of the room, or the ballots can be taken home and mailed back, or brought back in person.
11-03-09 is a state referendum, and there are 7 items, all important, some more controversial than others. Maine Rep. Terry Hayes of Buckfield has written a good synopsis of the items. Many localities will have their own municipal items on an additional, separate ballot, as well. [See Voters Can Speak? 9-30-09 below.]
An interesting point to ponder about the local ballot this November, this on-again-off-again ballot: the ballot is to be printed in-house, and they will be hand counted. Not a huge deal, perhaps, in the realm of things?
A voter called the town office in the middle of the third week of September, to check on possible items to be on the local ballot. The items were not clearly designated at that time. However, the town clerk mentioned in the phone discussion that there needn't be a concern about a time line for the usual printed ballots that go with the voting machines that have been used in the past; because "there was no money budgeted for ballots, and anyway those voting machines are so expensive to adjust" [a discussion of the calibrating of the voting machines followed] "so we are going to print the ballots in-house and save the town some money."
A little digging showed that, actually, there had indeed been money allotted for ballots and calibrating, as well as other needs, for both the June and November elections, and those needs were approved for inclusion in the annual budget passed 6-13-09. The costs for the specific items appear in the Administrative Services budget section: "Election/Voting Machine" is listed in Administrative Detail FY 2009-10 under "Other Services/Expenses," $3700; and "Election Supplies" is there under "General Supplies," $3500. The line item for "Ballot Clerks" may be more than the $1,150 budgeted since counting ballots by hand will require more hours.
The point to ponder is this: although it is not legal to move budgeted amounts already approved by the voters from one budget category to another, i.e., the Police Department to the Fire Department or the Highway Department, it is allowed to move items around within a category, say, for instance, within the Administrative Services budget.
Unused funds from a line item in the Administrative Services budget could become a source of funds for unexpected costs incurred in another line item that now needs more money. Could that work, say, for unplanned legal expenses that could well exceed its line item? Raid the elections budget, perhaps?
Counting paper ballots will be time consuming and painstaking for the clerks, and no doubt stressful, since on this particular paper ballot is just one highly contested question: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?" The controls in the town office for giving out and receiving absentee ballots will be under close scrutiny, as will those taking ballots to nursing homes and apartment complexes.
The voters of Paris will be wishing the paper-ballot counters the very best.
The issues are important, statewide as well as locally, and voting early is a very effective way to make a responsible statement. A voter can just go into the office and vote there in a place off to the side of the room, or the ballots can be taken home and mailed back, or brought back in person.
11-03-09 is a state referendum, and there are 7 items, all important, some more controversial than others. Maine Rep. Terry Hayes of Buckfield has written a good synopsis of the items. Many localities will have their own municipal items on an additional, separate ballot, as well. [See Voters Can Speak? 9-30-09 below.]
An interesting point to ponder about the local ballot this November, this on-again-off-again ballot: the ballot is to be printed in-house, and they will be hand counted. Not a huge deal, perhaps, in the realm of things?
A voter called the town office in the middle of the third week of September, to check on possible items to be on the local ballot. The items were not clearly designated at that time. However, the town clerk mentioned in the phone discussion that there needn't be a concern about a time line for the usual printed ballots that go with the voting machines that have been used in the past; because "there was no money budgeted for ballots, and anyway those voting machines are so expensive to adjust" [a discussion of the calibrating of the voting machines followed] "so we are going to print the ballots in-house and save the town some money."
A little digging showed that, actually, there had indeed been money allotted for ballots and calibrating, as well as other needs, for both the June and November elections, and those needs were approved for inclusion in the annual budget passed 6-13-09. The costs for the specific items appear in the Administrative Services budget section: "Election/Voting Machine" is listed in Administrative Detail FY 2009-10 under "Other Services/Expenses," $3700; and "Election Supplies" is there under "General Supplies," $3500. The line item for "Ballot Clerks" may be more than the $1,150 budgeted since counting ballots by hand will require more hours.
The point to ponder is this: although it is not legal to move budgeted amounts already approved by the voters from one budget category to another, i.e., the Police Department to the Fire Department or the Highway Department, it is allowed to move items around within a category, say, for instance, within the Administrative Services budget.
Unused funds from a line item in the Administrative Services budget could become a source of funds for unexpected costs incurred in another line item that now needs more money. Could that work, say, for unplanned legal expenses that could well exceed its line item? Raid the elections budget, perhaps?
Counting paper ballots will be time consuming and painstaking for the clerks, and no doubt stressful, since on this particular paper ballot is just one highly contested question: "Shall an ordinance entitled 'Ordinance for a recall election in the Town of Paris, Maine' be enacted?" "Yes or No?" The controls in the town office for giving out and receiving absentee ballots will be under close scrutiny, as will those taking ballots to nursing homes and apartment complexes.
The voters of Paris will be wishing the paper-ballot counters the very best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)