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.
