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....)
