The Paris Reporter has, as its primary focus, informing the people of this town about the news and issues affecting them. These words are in the mission statement at the top of the page.
Most of the information posted is researched by the editors; some is the result of research by others; all of the information is intended to be accurate, timely, and pertinent to the issues of the moment. If we learn that information posted was inaccurate, we will do our best to correct it.
In reference to a portion of our 11-16-09 posting, People? Choose?:
"Three weeks ago I received figures [from the town office] of what has been spent on Sharon Jackson's buyout. I was under the impression that the amount was for the budgeted year July 1 09 to June 30 10. It turns out the figures given me included a lump sum payment paid on the last payday of the fiscal year ended June 30 09. So, the figures I gave [posted in the 11-16-09 article] are incorrect."
Forrie Everett
Although that means there is more money available than the earlier post stated, the larger questions still remain:
*Whose town?
*Whose money?
*Whose agenda?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Overheard up in the front...
"...not without the full board...we'd end up with a 2-to-2 vote and it wouldn't be a fair vote."
Ch. Ivey, selectmen's meeting, 11-23-09.
Fairness, is it? The game is to have fairness in it? [snaps fingers] Missed that.
The above quote came during a discussion about setting the date for an election; the election in question being one of recall for the chairman and his vice chairman. The audience, quiet tonight, on the whole, tittered un-magnanimously after the comment.
Little generosity for the duplicity of attaching the word fair to a chairman who has just bellowed at a citizen "You're done, [citizen]. We're not having those comments." Comments [hers] referring to a defaming and degrading series of statements made by a supporter of the current town administration about a number of citizens, several of whom are in the room.
Fair, applying to the two who set up a surprise special selectmen's meeting to exquisitely coincide with a day when one of the 2 selectmen of the split vote minority was out of town; not only reducing the minority to an even more minor state, but insuring that the remaining selectman in the minority could be set up to look as wrong as possible. [10-08-09, A Calculated Distraction]
Fair, as in what it is not, when a person runs [literally, on foot] into someone on purpose out in the parking lot and then pretends the bumped-into person is at fault....
Instead of the word "fair," consider the quote in its fuller context, using words that might better reflect the speaker's intent:
"We're not going to take action on that tonight, not without the full board....we'd end up with a 2-to-2 vote, and [my agenda and that of my supporters would not be well served]."
Fairness is a highly desireable quality. It goes with telling the truth and making responsible decisions. It is about recognizing that, as a public official, the people you serve matter; the private agenda that serves you, does not.
Ch. Ivey, selectmen's meeting, 11-23-09.
Fairness, is it? The game is to have fairness in it? [snaps fingers] Missed that.
The above quote came during a discussion about setting the date for an election; the election in question being one of recall for the chairman and his vice chairman. The audience, quiet tonight, on the whole, tittered un-magnanimously after the comment.
Little generosity for the duplicity of attaching the word fair to a chairman who has just bellowed at a citizen "You're done, [citizen]. We're not having those comments." Comments [hers] referring to a defaming and degrading series of statements made by a supporter of the current town administration about a number of citizens, several of whom are in the room.
Fair, applying to the two who set up a surprise special selectmen's meeting to exquisitely coincide with a day when one of the 2 selectmen of the split vote minority was out of town; not only reducing the minority to an even more minor state, but insuring that the remaining selectman in the minority could be set up to look as wrong as possible. [10-08-09, A Calculated Distraction]
Fair, as in what it is not, when a person runs [literally, on foot] into someone on purpose out in the parking lot and then pretends the bumped-into person is at fault....
Instead of the word "fair," consider the quote in its fuller context, using words that might better reflect the speaker's intent:
"We're not going to take action on that tonight, not without the full board....we'd end up with a 2-to-2 vote, and [my agenda and that of my supporters would not be well served]."
Fairness is a highly desireable quality. It goes with telling the truth and making responsible decisions. It is about recognizing that, as a public official, the people you serve matter; the private agenda that serves you, does not.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Several meaty items
Several meaty items up for discussion Monday 11-23-09, 6 pm at the Paris selectmen's meeting.
The deadline for applications for the new town manager position was, according to the 11-19 Advertiser Democrat, Sunday the 22nd. Selectmen will meet in executive session starting at 6pm to review the applications. The regular meeting will start as soon as they finish the review.
Among the items included will be: bids for the fire dept.'s water tanker; snow removal bids; recall petitions submitted;
...and approval and signing of a special town meeting warrant for December 3.
The Paris Reporter has posted several articles about the hurry-up-and-do-this approach of the current town administration on certain items, and Article #2 on the proposed warrant is a case in point:
To see if the Town will vote to transfer a sum not to exceed $225,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance to a Town of Paris Equalization Account to undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011.
There is certainly a need to take corrective measures regarding the current tax assessment situation in Paris. Current Tax Assessor John Brushwein has said publicly on more than one occasion that there are numerous errors and inequities.
But consider:
"...undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011."
1. In order for this to take effect with the 2010-2011 tax commitment, the entire revaluation must be complete by March 31, 2010;
2. At most - 3 months to complete every property in Paris;
3. Land will be snow covered - how accurate can this be to determine land in swamp areas, etc.;
4. Formal bid proposals should be sent to several bidders and references required from the bidders. Low bidder may not be most qualified with best references. Proposal should outline town's expectations for what will be done, when to complete, how property owners will be notified this will be happening, when to meet with property owners after new assessments are done and before actual commitment takes place (many people go south during these 3 months);
5. Paris's last revaluation was done in house by non professionals and we know the results. Rushing this process through will compound the problems;
6. Planning and budgeting for the revaluation to be complete for the 2011-2012 commitment would allow 2 budget years and revaluation to be complete by March 31, 2011. (By state law, April 1 is the cutoff date for property values for commitment).
It would appear that, if done correctly, a revaluation process is demanding, complex and, above all, time consuming. If, in the interest of having an in depth job done in a shorter time period than a single tax assessor could manage on his own, and a quality assessing firm is considered for hire, then financing that move is critical for a small town like Paris.
What motives could there be for trying to push through this process without proper planning and responsible budgeting for the possible $225,000 price tag?
Why would the selectmen want to push Interim Mgr. Thorne to come up with financing schemes that rely on questionable logic and predictions in order to accomplish the unattainable goal of revaluation of the whole town, start to finish, in 3 months?
A look at Thorne's proposed use of the surplus of Excise Tax Revenues as a major source for part of the $225,000 shows not an increase in revenues over the years, but a decrease. (Note column "Actual.") His use of the 2009-2010 amount $551,813 is not accurate, because it was not an anticipated budget figure; rather it was the amount of revenues received as of 4-29-09.
Thorne's suggestion to possibly run an overlay of $100,000 to pay for the remainder of the $225,000 simply means higher taxes for Paris citizens next year; "overlay" uses a formula that relates directly back to mil rate, the mechanism that determines higher or lower taxes.
It is trap for any management to forget that a budget figure on paper does not automatically equal that amount being at the ready for immediate use; municipal revenue is often in tax money to come in over a period of time. Taking huge chunks of unbudgeted money out all at once, e.g., the $225,000, can severely affect cash flow.
As for his other option of coming up with the rest of the money next year by not increasing the Excise Tax Revenue projection "...and expect[ing] the [anticipated]surplus to be sufficient to pay the remainder of the revaluation cost...", this is little more than playing the possibilities. What kind of fiscal responsibility is this?
Why? Why? Why the rush, gentlemen? These things you want rushed through, have to be done before... what?
The deadline for applications for the new town manager position was, according to the 11-19 Advertiser Democrat, Sunday the 22nd. Selectmen will meet in executive session starting at 6pm to review the applications. The regular meeting will start as soon as they finish the review.
Among the items included will be: bids for the fire dept.'s water tanker; snow removal bids; recall petitions submitted;
...and approval and signing of a special town meeting warrant for December 3.
The Paris Reporter has posted several articles about the hurry-up-and-do-this approach of the current town administration on certain items, and Article #2 on the proposed warrant is a case in point:
To see if the Town will vote to transfer a sum not to exceed $225,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance to a Town of Paris Equalization Account to undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011.
There is certainly a need to take corrective measures regarding the current tax assessment situation in Paris. Current Tax Assessor John Brushwein has said publicly on more than one occasion that there are numerous errors and inequities.
But consider:
"...undergo a town wide revaluation in 2010 to take effect with the tax commitment for 2010-2011."
1. In order for this to take effect with the 2010-2011 tax commitment, the entire revaluation must be complete by March 31, 2010;
2. At most - 3 months to complete every property in Paris;
3. Land will be snow covered - how accurate can this be to determine land in swamp areas, etc.;
4. Formal bid proposals should be sent to several bidders and references required from the bidders. Low bidder may not be most qualified with best references. Proposal should outline town's expectations for what will be done, when to complete, how property owners will be notified this will be happening, when to meet with property owners after new assessments are done and before actual commitment takes place (many people go south during these 3 months);
5. Paris's last revaluation was done in house by non professionals and we know the results. Rushing this process through will compound the problems;
6. Planning and budgeting for the revaluation to be complete for the 2011-2012 commitment would allow 2 budget years and revaluation to be complete by March 31, 2011. (By state law, April 1 is the cutoff date for property values for commitment).
It would appear that, if done correctly, a revaluation process is demanding, complex and, above all, time consuming. If, in the interest of having an in depth job done in a shorter time period than a single tax assessor could manage on his own, and a quality assessing firm is considered for hire, then financing that move is critical for a small town like Paris.
What motives could there be for trying to push through this process without proper planning and responsible budgeting for the possible $225,000 price tag?
Why would the selectmen want to push Interim Mgr. Thorne to come up with financing schemes that rely on questionable logic and predictions in order to accomplish the unattainable goal of revaluation of the whole town, start to finish, in 3 months?
A look at Thorne's proposed use of the surplus of Excise Tax Revenues as a major source for part of the $225,000 shows not an increase in revenues over the years, but a decrease. (Note column "Actual.") His use of the 2009-2010 amount $551,813 is not accurate, because it was not an anticipated budget figure; rather it was the amount of revenues received as of 4-29-09.
Thorne's suggestion to possibly run an overlay of $100,000 to pay for the remainder of the $225,000 simply means higher taxes for Paris citizens next year; "overlay" uses a formula that relates directly back to mil rate, the mechanism that determines higher or lower taxes.
It is trap for any management to forget that a budget figure on paper does not automatically equal that amount being at the ready for immediate use; municipal revenue is often in tax money to come in over a period of time. Taking huge chunks of unbudgeted money out all at once, e.g., the $225,000, can severely affect cash flow.
As for his other option of coming up with the rest of the money next year by not increasing the Excise Tax Revenue projection "...and expect[ing] the [anticipated]surplus to be sufficient to pay the remainder of the revaluation cost...", this is little more than playing the possibilities. What kind of fiscal responsibility is this?
Why? Why? Why the rush, gentlemen? These things you want rushed through, have to be done before... what?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Citizen Reminder
Monday November 23, Paris Fire Station selectman meet. According to the 11-19-09 Advertiser Democrat the meeting will start with an executive session at 6 pm to review town manager applicant resumes. Plan to come then and see who might be running our town and what's going to happen next.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Which Tuesday was that?
Overheard just recently from a selectmen (not Ch. Ivey):
"I didn't hear him [the town's attorney] say anything like that."
Advertiser Democrat, 11-12-09:
"According to Ivey, town attorney Geoffrey Hole gave the go-ahead to re-hire, Tuesday, saying the Jackson suit 'could take years' to resolve."
"Resignations," p.7A
Tuesday, was it? Which Tuesday was that? The Advertiser came out 11-12-09...perhaps Tuesday the 10th? Reassuring, that is; to hear that our chairman listens and pays close attention to the attorney whose fees Paris taxpayers are covering.
But that Tuesday, 11-10-09 doesn't seem to fit quite right. Because on October 8, at 5PM at the Paris Town Office there was a surprise special selectmen's meeting with 6 items on the agenda; #4 was "Discussion and action on hiring a new town manager."
Ch. Ivey's point was that Int. Thorne had decided to finish up earlier than he had originally said, and had recommended the town begin to look for a new manager. [This site 10-12-09, "Why the rush, gentlemen?"]
Perhaps the Tuesday being referred to was the 6th... Tuesday, November 10? Tuesday, October 6? Both Tuesdays. Easy mistake.
But perhaps the Tuesday in question is earlier yet. Close examination of the NPC-TV DVD recording of the 10-08 meeting picked up on the use of past tense:
"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."
[this site 10-08-09]
Possibly the selectman mentioned in our opening "overheard" comment didn't hear the attorney's comment because he simply missed it.
Might there be another possibility? Could this whole comment have been intended as a not-very-clever ruse to deflect growing suspicion about the motives for hiring a new manager at this juncture? At a time when the town is facing an unresolved lawsuit? And has no plan for financing such a position under the town's present budget?
What if the ruse is to deflect attention from the consideration of a particular new manager?
The question cannot be asked enough times: Why the rush?
A special town meeting has been scheduled for December 3 to ask voters to re-designate funds from an insurance settlement to a different project. That could be innocent enough...but then there is the questionable sales pitch for the proposed property revaluation: Get the Good Price by Signing Up Now!
No problem: simply borrow the money from ourselves, and just as simply pay ourselves back...within a year or so...only a little tax hike. Taxpayers love tax hikes.
And a new manager - just before the budget process. Precarious timing for a new manager.... one could wonder whether that timing was chosen on purpose for hiring? Whose agenda could this be?
"I didn't hear him [the town's attorney] say anything like that."
Advertiser Democrat, 11-12-09:
"According to Ivey, town attorney Geoffrey Hole gave the go-ahead to re-hire, Tuesday, saying the Jackson suit 'could take years' to resolve."
"Resignations," p.7A
Tuesday, was it? Which Tuesday was that? The Advertiser came out 11-12-09...perhaps Tuesday the 10th? Reassuring, that is; to hear that our chairman listens and pays close attention to the attorney whose fees Paris taxpayers are covering.
But that Tuesday, 11-10-09 doesn't seem to fit quite right. Because on October 8, at 5PM at the Paris Town Office there was a surprise special selectmen's meeting with 6 items on the agenda; #4 was "Discussion and action on hiring a new town manager."
Ch. Ivey's point was that Int. Thorne had decided to finish up earlier than he had originally said, and had recommended the town begin to look for a new manager. [This site 10-12-09, "Why the rush, gentlemen?"]
Perhaps the Tuesday being referred to was the 6th... Tuesday, November 10? Tuesday, October 6? Both Tuesdays. Easy mistake.
But perhaps the Tuesday in question is earlier yet. Close examination of the NPC-TV DVD recording of the 10-08 meeting picked up on the use of past tense:
"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."
[this site 10-08-09]
Possibly the selectman mentioned in our opening "overheard" comment didn't hear the attorney's comment because he simply missed it.
Might there be another possibility? Could this whole comment have been intended as a not-very-clever ruse to deflect growing suspicion about the motives for hiring a new manager at this juncture? At a time when the town is facing an unresolved lawsuit? And has no plan for financing such a position under the town's present budget?
What if the ruse is to deflect attention from the consideration of a particular new manager?
The question cannot be asked enough times: Why the rush?
A special town meeting has been scheduled for December 3 to ask voters to re-designate funds from an insurance settlement to a different project. That could be innocent enough...but then there is the questionable sales pitch for the proposed property revaluation: Get the Good Price by Signing Up Now!
No problem: simply borrow the money from ourselves, and just as simply pay ourselves back...within a year or so...only a little tax hike. Taxpayers love tax hikes.
And a new manager - just before the budget process. Precarious timing for a new manager.... one could wonder whether that timing was chosen on purpose for hiring? Whose agenda could this be?
Monday, November 16, 2009
People? Choose?
It's all about the people. "Let's let the people choose." Heard that the other night at our selectmen's meeting from the vice chair.
Is letting the people choose good if the choice is an item high on an elected official's priority list - but not good if it involves allowing budgetary oversight or hard questions about long term plans?
Do the people get to choose whether the budget they voted in last June is followed? According to MMA description, in a town meeting form of government (e.g., the Town of Paris) the legislative body determines what laws ought to govern the town and "the amounts of money to be spent." Does that include money-decisions made in secret (even from part of the selectboard) that are gobbling up money budgeted for items - like legal fees - with no thought for the future? [See earlier posts (1) (2) (3) on this topic.]
Do the people get to weigh in on the ill-advised plan to consider hiring a full time town manager before (1) the interim town manager is finished being paid, and (2) the former town manager's legal claims are resolved? Where is the town's attorney, anyway? Does he only speak in whispers to a solitary selectman at odd intervals, now and then?
Is someone trying to convince voters that all funds are fluid in this town? That all money is equal? That if it's on paper - somewhere - we can use it? And if it's not on paper, but someone talks about the need for it, magic will happen?
[Figures below are from Budget Committee Ch. Forrie Everett]
Consider:
Former Town Mgr. Jackson's wages 7-1-09 to 7-1-10 were budgeted at $64,116.00. As of 11-03-09, she has been paid $42,774.52.
Assuming Int. Mgr. Thorne stays, from 7-13-09 to 2-13-10, he will have been paid $18.600.00
The 2 will have cost the town a total of $61,374.52. That leaves just $2742.00. Twenty-one weeks from 2-1-10 to 7-1-10 when new budget comes out; that makes it $130.57 per week for this new town manager. Whatdayathink?
Take it from the contingency fund? Oops, using that for legal fees .... Fire equipment really shouldn't really be all that negotiable....well, there's the insurance money for the damaged roof of the old fire station...no one needs to vote to use designated funds for something different, do they? Why would the voters need to be asked anything? And of course there's the rushing out to hire a company to do the new property revaluation for the town, to be paid for by borrowing against our own money. Every tax payer will see that added to his/her bill next year...We have to do this reval before...before...what? or what will happen?
Too much. Way too much.
Is letting the people choose good if the choice is an item high on an elected official's priority list - but not good if it involves allowing budgetary oversight or hard questions about long term plans?
Do the people get to choose whether the budget they voted in last June is followed? According to MMA description, in a town meeting form of government (e.g., the Town of Paris) the legislative body determines what laws ought to govern the town and "the amounts of money to be spent." Does that include money-decisions made in secret (even from part of the selectboard) that are gobbling up money budgeted for items - like legal fees - with no thought for the future? [See earlier posts (1) (2) (3) on this topic.]
Do the people get to weigh in on the ill-advised plan to consider hiring a full time town manager before (1) the interim town manager is finished being paid, and (2) the former town manager's legal claims are resolved? Where is the town's attorney, anyway? Does he only speak in whispers to a solitary selectman at odd intervals, now and then?
Is someone trying to convince voters that all funds are fluid in this town? That all money is equal? That if it's on paper - somewhere - we can use it? And if it's not on paper, but someone talks about the need for it, magic will happen?
[Figures below are from Budget Committee Ch. Forrie Everett]
Consider:
Former Town Mgr. Jackson's wages 7-1-09 to 7-1-10 were budgeted at $64,116.00. As of 11-03-09, she has been paid $42,774.52.
Assuming Int. Mgr. Thorne stays, from 7-13-09 to 2-13-10, he will have been paid $18.600.00
The 2 will have cost the town a total of $61,374.52. That leaves just $2742.00. Twenty-one weeks from 2-1-10 to 7-1-10 when new budget comes out; that makes it $130.57 per week for this new town manager. Whatdayathink?
Take it from the contingency fund? Oops, using that for legal fees .... Fire equipment really shouldn't really be all that negotiable....well, there's the insurance money for the damaged roof of the old fire station...no one needs to vote to use designated funds for something different, do they? Why would the voters need to be asked anything? And of course there's the rushing out to hire a company to do the new property revaluation for the town, to be paid for by borrowing against our own money. Every tax payer will see that added to his/her bill next year...We have to do this reval before...before...what? or what will happen?
Too much. Way too much.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Holding court
Monday night, Paris voters sat as a captive audience to lawyerly pitch and prattle surrounding the issue of Town Farm Road (yet again) and who should be taking care of this road into Town Farm Estates.
Bubbles of thought could be imagined across the audience: "We need a proper road into our homes." ..."The town needs to be doing something about this."..."Why can't they get this right?"... "This is just the same old same old."... "Why are they so mean to us?"
And there might be other thought bubbles: "What's behind this latest revisit to the situation?"... "Who's behind this?"... "Is this really just about the road and its physical maintenance?"..."Why the focus on who said what, when, and the times in the past when decisions did not reflect the action desired by the lawyer currently speaking?"
..."Why isn't there interest, on the part of the 3-2 voting majority selectmen, in Selectman Herrick's suggestion that an engineer be brought in to assess the road to see if the town might be able to help?" ... " Not an engineer? Just someone to say who's responsible for the road?"
Mr. Hanley spent a good deal of his 33.5 minutes of meeting time Monday trying to assure his audience that the Town Farm Road Association had not wanted to litigate in 2005, they had only wanted to "have these questions answered." They don't want to sue the town now, either, he said; they just want to sit down and talk - to come to some kind of "reasonable outcome."
Mr. Hanley vented his personal frustration that he had received only a "two-sentence" response to these questions from the Paris town manager in April 2005. His presentation Monday, including the interrogation of Selectman Glover, seemed directed toward proving that the former town manager had personally prevented him from facilitating the response he had sought for his clients at that time.
There seemed an intent to show that the town manager had handled the situation badly, i.e., not spoken with selectmen, not corresponded properly through channels; had given an irresponsible response; case in point, contending that the two-sentence letter, mentioned in the previous paragraph, had been an independent action on her part.
Referring to the two-sentence letter, Mr. Hanley said "On April 10th [2005] I received a letter from the town manager, Sharon Jackson...." Except, the letter to him, and cc'd to the selectmen, shows a different date, April 12, 2005, i.e., the day after a regular selectmen's meeting that included an executive session to meet with the town's attorney. Could the use of the wrong date on the letter, plus the omission of the selectmen being notified, have been, perhaps, just a slip of Mr. Hanley's tongue?
Mr. Hanley also complained he was not allowed to speak to the town's attorney himself in April 2005 about the questions he wanted resolved. Could there have been more details to that situation? Details that perhaps might not fit the current need?
What might be the intent here? Could it be to show that the town and its lawyers (a) got the original plan to discontinue the road as a town road in 1933, wrong? (b) in reaffirming the discontinuance in newer legal language in 1967, still got it wrong? (c) in working on it in 2005, got it wrong, again?
Or, could it be that Mr. Hanley's "reasonable outcome" might not mean fixing the road, but rather, getting what we want on our own terms?
Bubbles of thought could be imagined across the audience: "We need a proper road into our homes." ..."The town needs to be doing something about this."..."Why can't they get this right?"... "This is just the same old same old."... "Why are they so mean to us?"
And there might be other thought bubbles: "What's behind this latest revisit to the situation?"... "Who's behind this?"... "Is this really just about the road and its physical maintenance?"..."Why the focus on who said what, when, and the times in the past when decisions did not reflect the action desired by the lawyer currently speaking?"
..."Why isn't there interest, on the part of the 3-2 voting majority selectmen, in Selectman Herrick's suggestion that an engineer be brought in to assess the road to see if the town might be able to help?" ... " Not an engineer? Just someone to say who's responsible for the road?"
Mr. Hanley spent a good deal of his 33.5 minutes of meeting time Monday trying to assure his audience that the Town Farm Road Association had not wanted to litigate in 2005, they had only wanted to "have these questions answered." They don't want to sue the town now, either, he said; they just want to sit down and talk - to come to some kind of "reasonable outcome."
Mr. Hanley vented his personal frustration that he had received only a "two-sentence" response to these questions from the Paris town manager in April 2005. His presentation Monday, including the interrogation of Selectman Glover, seemed directed toward proving that the former town manager had personally prevented him from facilitating the response he had sought for his clients at that time.
There seemed an intent to show that the town manager had handled the situation badly, i.e., not spoken with selectmen, not corresponded properly through channels; had given an irresponsible response; case in point, contending that the two-sentence letter, mentioned in the previous paragraph, had been an independent action on her part.
Referring to the two-sentence letter, Mr. Hanley said "On April 10th [2005] I received a letter from the town manager, Sharon Jackson...." Except, the letter to him, and cc'd to the selectmen, shows a different date, April 12, 2005, i.e., the day after a regular selectmen's meeting that included an executive session to meet with the town's attorney. Could the use of the wrong date on the letter, plus the omission of the selectmen being notified, have been, perhaps, just a slip of Mr. Hanley's tongue?
Mr. Hanley also complained he was not allowed to speak to the town's attorney himself in April 2005 about the questions he wanted resolved. Could there have been more details to that situation? Details that perhaps might not fit the current need?
What might be the intent here? Could it be to show that the town and its lawyers (a) got the original plan to discontinue the road as a town road in 1933, wrong? (b) in reaffirming the discontinuance in newer legal language in 1967, still got it wrong? (c) in working on it in 2005, got it wrong, again?
Or, could it be that Mr. Hanley's "reasonable outcome" might not mean fixing the road, but rather, getting what we want on our own terms?
Speculations & Facts
Speculation:
Will there be a new town manager voted in at the next selectman's meeting November 23? Anyone we know?
Fact:
Town Clerk and Registrar of Voters Anne Pastore has given notice that she will resign, effective at the end of November.
Tax Assessor John Brushwein has accepted a new position inTrenton, Maine.
Will there be a new town manager voted in at the next selectman's meeting November 23? Anyone we know?
Fact:
Town Clerk and Registrar of Voters Anne Pastore has given notice that she will resign, effective at the end of November.
Tax Assessor John Brushwein has accepted a new position inTrenton, Maine.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Overheard...
Citizen: Are you going to recuse yourself [from a discussion about a road maintenance issue where a family member owns property] ?
V-Chair: No. I said no, I'm not going to.
Citzen: Then, you're going against the law?
V-Chair: Okay.
V-Chair: No. I said no, I'm not going to.
Citzen: Then, you're going against the law?
V-Chair: Okay.
Some information, but mostly questions
Some important issues on the selectmen's agenda Monday night, issues affecting public safety; about land use; about financial support for individual citizen group requests.
Topics relevant to those who live here: fire equipment; tax revaluation; paying for road care; ordinance amendments; snowmobile funding request. In the running of a town, what's the common factor?
What brought 75 or so people to a meeting where there is little or no public input?
The answer in common: money. In the long run and in the short run. Whether asking for it, or looking to direct the use of it, or fearing it could be spent recklessly if not enough oversight.
At the end of the night, some unanswered questions:
Why the need for courtroom antics to readdress a concern about the care of a local subdivision's private road? For 30 minutes? Who was the audience? Is the road itself the only issue? Is there another agenda?
Why the need to hurry and sign up an assessment firm to do the revaluation? The process to be set up within the next 3 weeks? Our current tax assessor says revaluation is necessary because of the inequities between some sections of town, some individual landowners, some legal descriptions for land assessment; and a team, with his suggestions to go by, could move faster. But by December 3? Would that limit his opportunity to give input on very many specific problems? Why the hurry?
Is this the way other towns sign up an assessment firm (if they do)...to allow 3 weeks to go out for bids and get recommendations and come back to the citizens to tell them about the process in the first place and then get approval from the citizens somewhere in there to spend the money to have this done?
What is going to happen after December that will make this process impossible to consider? Was there mention of saving $15,000-$20,000 if we do it in December? Has there been a specific firm approached already by someone? When Assessor John Brushwein made the suggestion several meetings ago about a professional firm to do the revaluation, was that considered the research necessary to make this December 3 town meeting vote plan?
What about this $225,000 that the town could borrow from "undesignated funds" to pay for this firm (that will magically cost only 225 K) - and paying it back next year on each and every individual tax bill for Paris taxpayers? Wait a minute....can we talk about this? Before you get us all at the table to sign the paper?
And what about the new town manager? (That was a hurry up job, too. Why was that?) The executive session was just beginning when the audience left at 9:15 Monday PM. Is this discussion merely a ruse? Has the decision long been made? By a few?
Again. Over and over. More questions than answers.
Topics relevant to those who live here: fire equipment; tax revaluation; paying for road care; ordinance amendments; snowmobile funding request. In the running of a town, what's the common factor?
What brought 75 or so people to a meeting where there is little or no public input?
The answer in common: money. In the long run and in the short run. Whether asking for it, or looking to direct the use of it, or fearing it could be spent recklessly if not enough oversight.
At the end of the night, some unanswered questions:
Why the need for courtroom antics to readdress a concern about the care of a local subdivision's private road? For 30 minutes? Who was the audience? Is the road itself the only issue? Is there another agenda?
Why the need to hurry and sign up an assessment firm to do the revaluation? The process to be set up within the next 3 weeks? Our current tax assessor says revaluation is necessary because of the inequities between some sections of town, some individual landowners, some legal descriptions for land assessment; and a team, with his suggestions to go by, could move faster. But by December 3? Would that limit his opportunity to give input on very many specific problems? Why the hurry?
Is this the way other towns sign up an assessment firm (if they do)...to allow 3 weeks to go out for bids and get recommendations and come back to the citizens to tell them about the process in the first place and then get approval from the citizens somewhere in there to spend the money to have this done?
What is going to happen after December that will make this process impossible to consider? Was there mention of saving $15,000-$20,000 if we do it in December? Has there been a specific firm approached already by someone? When Assessor John Brushwein made the suggestion several meetings ago about a professional firm to do the revaluation, was that considered the research necessary to make this December 3 town meeting vote plan?
What about this $225,000 that the town could borrow from "undesignated funds" to pay for this firm (that will magically cost only 225 K) - and paying it back next year on each and every individual tax bill for Paris taxpayers? Wait a minute....can we talk about this? Before you get us all at the table to sign the paper?
And what about the new town manager? (That was a hurry up job, too. Why was that?) The executive session was just beginning when the audience left at 9:15 Monday PM. Is this discussion merely a ruse? Has the decision long been made? By a few?
Again. Over and over. More questions than answers.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
All Present and Accounted For
Citizen reminder:
Paris Selectmen meet Monday 11-09-09
7PM Paris Fire Station
Come if you can. It looks as if all selectmen will be able to be present and accounted for this meeting.
Perhaps the message has become clear that citizens are watching the gears moving the machine that runs the Town of Paris. There have consistently been more than 40 interested citizens at the regularly scheduled selectmen meetings for several months now; and the administration has automatically scheduled the last 2 in succession for the meeting room at the Paris fire station.
[The town office meeting room has a capacity of only 50: 5 selectmen; town manager; 2 reporters; a cameraman from NPCTV; a policeman, or two; leaving room for 40 interested citizens at the most.]
There are some substantial topics on the agenda this time, including the executive session that is, according to the agenda, a discussion of applications for the new town manager position. Any decision made in that session - or any executive session - must be voted on in public after the session.
Will the salary under discussion be princely? Will the position offered be another interim one, in case April's court date for the pending law suit reveals a verdict of illegal firing of Sharon Jackson? And just how soon will this new person be hired? What else will this town manager be expected to do?
In the rush to get a new manager in place to help with the budget planning for fiscal year 2010-2011, beginning in March 2010, will any correct and careful procedures be overlooked in order to fill any private, personal agenda? Will the good of the whole town always be upermost in the minds of all the selectmen?
Paris Selectmen meet Monday 11-09-09
7PM Paris Fire Station
Come if you can. It looks as if all selectmen will be able to be present and accounted for this meeting.
Perhaps the message has become clear that citizens are watching the gears moving the machine that runs the Town of Paris. There have consistently been more than 40 interested citizens at the regularly scheduled selectmen meetings for several months now; and the administration has automatically scheduled the last 2 in succession for the meeting room at the Paris fire station.
[The town office meeting room has a capacity of only 50: 5 selectmen; town manager; 2 reporters; a cameraman from NPCTV; a policeman, or two; leaving room for 40 interested citizens at the most.]
There are some substantial topics on the agenda this time, including the executive session that is, according to the agenda, a discussion of applications for the new town manager position. Any decision made in that session - or any executive session - must be voted on in public after the session.
Will the salary under discussion be princely? Will the position offered be another interim one, in case April's court date for the pending law suit reveals a verdict of illegal firing of Sharon Jackson? And just how soon will this new person be hired? What else will this town manager be expected to do?
In the rush to get a new manager in place to help with the budget planning for fiscal year 2010-2011, beginning in March 2010, will any correct and careful procedures be overlooked in order to fill any private, personal agenda? Will the good of the whole town always be upermost in the minds of all the selectmen?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Correcting Some Misconceptions
Clarifying a few points about the recently enacted recall ordinance in Paris:
*How is a vacancy filled on the selectboard if a selectman is unelected at a recall election? A special town meeting may be called. The operative word is may. [30-A, MRSA §2521, Call of Town Meeting; 30-A; MRSA §2602(3), Vacancy in Municipal Office]
*Can the board of selectmen appoint someone to fill a vacancy - temporarily or otherwise? A vacancy on the board of selectmen, or in any other elected office, can only be filled by an election by secret ballot. [30-A, MRSA §2528, Secret Ballot, (1) Acceptance by town].
*How often can recall of an elected official be attempted? If an official is not removed in a recall election, he or she can not be subjected to another recall attempt for another six months. [Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine §6]
*How is a vacancy filled on the selectboard if a selectman is unelected at a recall election? A special town meeting may be called. The operative word is may. [30-A, MRSA §2521, Call of Town Meeting; 30-A; MRSA §2602(3), Vacancy in Municipal Office]
*Can the board of selectmen appoint someone to fill a vacancy - temporarily or otherwise? A vacancy on the board of selectmen, or in any other elected office, can only be filled by an election by secret ballot. [30-A, MRSA §2528, Secret Ballot, (1) Acceptance by town].
*How often can recall of an elected official be attempted? If an official is not removed in a recall election, he or she can not be subjected to another recall attempt for another six months. [Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine §6]
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Just the Facts
A referendum was held in Paris on 11/3/09, with a local recall ordinance and seven state questions on the ballot…
At the end of the day, 2136 Paris voters had expressed an opinion…
On the question of whether to enact the local recall ordinance, 1556 said, "Yes," 537 said, "No," and 43 chose to say nothing at all.
These are just the facts.
At the end of the day, 2136 Paris voters had expressed an opinion…
On the question of whether to enact the local recall ordinance, 1556 said, "Yes," 537 said, "No," and 43 chose to say nothing at all.
These are just the facts.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Citizen Reminder...
Be sure you vote Nov. 3, 2009
Paris polls open 8AM - 8PM
Paris Fire Station
Not registered? You can register, and then vote, at the polls.
Paris polls open 8AM - 8PM
Paris Fire Station
Not registered? You can register, and then vote, at the polls.
Weigh in on:
*Several critical state issues;
*Enactment of a local recall ordinance.
You may also vote before the 3rd at the town office, 8:30-4:30.
Do You Wonder...
...if a new town manager has already been picked to replace Interim Mike Thorne?
...if a full time contract will be offered a new candidate, despite a question pending before the court on whether former town manager S. Jackson was removed legally? Leaving Paris to face the possibility of having two full time managers? And paying severance, again?
...if wisdom would prevail, and a second interim manager to replace Thorne might be hired until legal questions were resolved, thus not further burdening the taxpayers of Paris?
...if the costly advertising for this new post, including 2 weekend editions of the Sun Journal - good options, but not inexpensive - will provide enough cover in case a prearranged candidate has been chosen?
...if, at the next selectmen's meeting Nov. 9th, after a quick executive session, (no matter whether all 5 selectmen have had previous knowledge of all, or any, candidates) there will be a vote on a new town manager?
...if any of the above would surprise anyone?
...if a full time contract will be offered a new candidate, despite a question pending before the court on whether former town manager S. Jackson was removed legally? Leaving Paris to face the possibility of having two full time managers? And paying severance, again?
...if wisdom would prevail, and a second interim manager to replace Thorne might be hired until legal questions were resolved, thus not further burdening the taxpayers of Paris?
...if the costly advertising for this new post, including 2 weekend editions of the Sun Journal - good options, but not inexpensive - will provide enough cover in case a prearranged candidate has been chosen?
...if, at the next selectmen's meeting Nov. 9th, after a quick executive session, (no matter whether all 5 selectmen have had previous knowledge of all, or any, candidates) there will be a vote on a new town manager?
...if any of the above would surprise anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)