Wednesday January 6
Absentee ballots for both Feb. 1st and Feb. 5th recall elections in Paris should be available.
Thursday January 7
At 7 PM an open town meeting is scheduled for Paris Voters, Paris Elementary School on High Street.
Jan. 6. Despite gloom, doom, threats and diversions, there are 2 separate recall elections scheduled for the first week in February. The law states that 30 days before a referendum election, ballots must be available for those who wish to vote by absentee ballot. (See this site: "Why come out twice? Vote once" and "Has anyone called?")
Paris voters - who are becoming more and more convinced that every single vote makes a difference - can take advantage of the option to vote by absentee ballot, and make just one trip to the polling place and cast 4 individual votes yay or nay.
Jan. 7. Giving voters very short notice, selectmen have very hastily pulled together and scheduled an open town meeting which includes, as of this posting, the following articles for vote:
(1) A petitioned proposal for a replacement recall ordinance, submitted 12-28-09, to repeal the Nov. 3rd ordinance approved by voters 1556 to 537. The replacement ordinance is designed to cancel any recall efforts to date;
(2) Borrowing money to undergo a town wide revaluation, with the intent to do the revaluation this winter;
(3) Transfer of funds to pay for a water tank replacement for the fire department's tanker truck;
(4) Transfer of funds to support a grant request sought by Snow Hoppers Snowmobile Club of S. Paris to repair/replace a snowmobile bridge.
The articles can get rearranged to be voted on in any order. It's important to stay until the meeting is adjourned, because any earlier vote can be reconsidered at any time.
Asking the voters to come out at night, in the middle of the winter, for a couple of hours, does not seem the best way to give all Paris voters the chance to make their wishes known.
It seems, rather, a way to control the number of people who would - or can - come. We must take this as an opportunity, however, and get as many voters out as possible.
All the voters, not just a chosen few, are, and must be, the bottom line deciders for how things are run in this town. Elected officials are answerable to all the voters.
The voters in this town must be wise enough to see through the gloom, doom, threats and diversions.
The focus in this town must be on what makes it strong - the people. All of us.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Beyond All Imagination
The December 28th Paris Selectmen's meeting was spectacular. Really beyond all imagination. Designed to shock and awe.
They thought.
*Paris has a new town manager. With a rock solid contract.
*Some pay warrants - well, not too sure about them, but some got paid... and others were going to be checked on to see what was in them....lawyer fees and all....maybe? Or not.
*A new item magically appeared on the agenda just today. Tricky, huh? Guess when a couple of Paris voters asked back a few weeks ago to get on the agenda - and didn't because "they missed the deadline" - were plain old unlucky. Or ...
The magically appearing item was a brand new proposed recall ordinance. Shiny new. Well, actually, it did have to be removed from the office to be "tweaked" a few days back, it was said. So, almost shiny new. Guess the 1556 "for" and 537 "against" (43 no vote) recall ordinance vote on November 3, 2009 didn't suit.
*Next, a very quick - and really soon - Open Town Meeting plan; coming up January 7. All the items you ever wanted to have on a warrant and then some - especially if you were thinking that your term of office might be shortened in the near future and you had places to go and promises to keep.
*And a new interim town clerk appointed. How utterly normal.
Explanations were not so plentiful, or responses to questions; and toward the end, it was pretty fuzzy whether the meeting was over - or whether there were quiet negotiations going on while the audience chatted (thinking, obviously, that since they had heard"adjournment" called for and the next thing that happened was conversation in the audience, that it probably was adjournment. But it wasn't at all; because a couple of people up close to the table discovered all sorts of things were being discussed. Surprise!)
Selectman Herrick tried valiantly to wade through the molasses and sort out situation after situation - and perhaps he did; but, from the audience, no one could tell.
Some smug faces in the audience, a sneer or two. Some very quiet. Some angry.
But nobody in the room was even remotely shocked. And there was no room at all for awe. Of any kind.
Really, call NPC-TV, 743-7859, and find when the video of this meeting can be viewed. Or order one for yourself. You have to see this to believe it.
They thought.
*Paris has a new town manager. With a rock solid contract.
*Some pay warrants - well, not too sure about them, but some got paid... and others were going to be checked on to see what was in them....lawyer fees and all....maybe? Or not.
*A new item magically appeared on the agenda just today. Tricky, huh? Guess when a couple of Paris voters asked back a few weeks ago to get on the agenda - and didn't because "they missed the deadline" - were plain old unlucky. Or ...
The magically appearing item was a brand new proposed recall ordinance. Shiny new. Well, actually, it did have to be removed from the office to be "tweaked" a few days back, it was said. So, almost shiny new. Guess the 1556 "for" and 537 "against" (43 no vote) recall ordinance vote on November 3, 2009 didn't suit.
*Next, a very quick - and really soon - Open Town Meeting plan; coming up January 7. All the items you ever wanted to have on a warrant and then some - especially if you were thinking that your term of office might be shortened in the near future and you had places to go and promises to keep.
*And a new interim town clerk appointed. How utterly normal.
Explanations were not so plentiful, or responses to questions; and toward the end, it was pretty fuzzy whether the meeting was over - or whether there were quiet negotiations going on while the audience chatted (thinking, obviously, that since they had heard"adjournment" called for and the next thing that happened was conversation in the audience, that it probably was adjournment. But it wasn't at all; because a couple of people up close to the table discovered all sorts of things were being discussed. Surprise!)
Selectman Herrick tried valiantly to wade through the molasses and sort out situation after situation - and perhaps he did; but, from the audience, no one could tell.
Some smug faces in the audience, a sneer or two. Some very quiet. Some angry.
But nobody in the room was even remotely shocked. And there was no room at all for awe. Of any kind.
Really, call NPC-TV, 743-7859, and find when the video of this meeting can be viewed. Or order one for yourself. You have to see this to believe it.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Any Questions?
On Monday December 28 Paris Selectmen meet at 7 pm at the fire station. The agenda promises a full schedule of critical items.
Items 4 and 11 relate to one of the critical items - the appointment of Philip Tarr as Town Manager. As does item #3, the executive session to discuss the contract. There seems to be no looking at the possibility of a second interim manager until the legal issues with former Town Mgr. Jackson are clearer; no concern about possible court costs and legal outcomes - outcomes that are indeed going to come.
A full time manager. Listen carefully tomorrow night as the contract is explained fully. What? No explanation forthcoming? Guess they had a reason for Citizen Comments being well down the page, #7. It's too bad nobody will be able to ask about iron clad contracts, and what they cost. Or ask about what happens "if"....
Do they think it doesn't matter who picks up the tab? And while we're at it - considering questions we aren't supposed to ask - who put this tab together, anyway?
Item # 10 indicates a Special Town Meeting sometime in January. The fire department's water tanker is definitely a real need; but what about the rush job revaluation? with money not yet avavailable? Revaluation must be looked at and thoroughly discussed, yes.
But, exactly who would benefit from this revaluation if it is done right away in the middle of winter? Finished before April? Is the aim to get a thorough and well done job for the whole town of Paris, or is the rush to fullfill a campaign promise to somebody?
If the current majority of a board suspected they might not be the majority as long as they planned, and wanted to insure there was no way for successors to get around the priorities they had already set in motion...
...how might that look?
If any part of those priorities was not in the best interest of the whole town, what sort of agenda would that be? Who would ever do such a thing?
Items 4 and 11 relate to one of the critical items - the appointment of Philip Tarr as Town Manager. As does item #3, the executive session to discuss the contract. There seems to be no looking at the possibility of a second interim manager until the legal issues with former Town Mgr. Jackson are clearer; no concern about possible court costs and legal outcomes - outcomes that are indeed going to come.
A full time manager. Listen carefully tomorrow night as the contract is explained fully. What? No explanation forthcoming? Guess they had a reason for Citizen Comments being well down the page, #7. It's too bad nobody will be able to ask about iron clad contracts, and what they cost. Or ask about what happens "if"....
Do they think it doesn't matter who picks up the tab? And while we're at it - considering questions we aren't supposed to ask - who put this tab together, anyway?
Item # 10 indicates a Special Town Meeting sometime in January. The fire department's water tanker is definitely a real need; but what about the rush job revaluation? with money not yet avavailable? Revaluation must be looked at and thoroughly discussed, yes.
But, exactly who would benefit from this revaluation if it is done right away in the middle of winter? Finished before April? Is the aim to get a thorough and well done job for the whole town of Paris, or is the rush to fullfill a campaign promise to somebody?
If the current majority of a board suspected they might not be the majority as long as they planned, and wanted to insure there was no way for successors to get around the priorities they had already set in motion...
...how might that look?
If any part of those priorities was not in the best interest of the whole town, what sort of agenda would that be? Who would ever do such a thing?
Why come out Twice? Vote Once
Instead of saving Paris voters from having to come out more than once to get one recall election taken care of, 2 elections have been set: cost in the many hundreds of dollars, inconvenience for all. Maybe to make people mad? Make them forget to come out at all?
(Forget? Really? What town are they looking at?)
But Paris voters truly do have another option. (on this site 12-23-09) Absentee ballot voting is available for all registered voters. By law referendum ballot elections have to have ballots available 30 days prior to an election date, and that includes a recall election. 21-A MRSA §752. Two recall elections, Monday Feb. 1, the other Friday Feb. 5. If voters go to the town office January 6 (better call first to be sure) ballots for both recall elections should be available.
The ballot design is prescribed by law 21-A MRSA §601. It must state, in some form, that each candidate for recall is voted on separately, yes or no, no matter whether on one ballot, or 2 individual ballots. Note: it is not a matter of choosing one candidate for recall over the other candidate. Each individual candidate for recall must receive a yes or no vote.
Call the Paris Town Office to see when all ballots will be ready for both recall elections. Then you can go and vote early on all 4 candidates at one time.
(Forget? Really? What town are they looking at?)
But Paris voters truly do have another option. (on this site 12-23-09) Absentee ballot voting is available for all registered voters. By law referendum ballot elections have to have ballots available 30 days prior to an election date, and that includes a recall election. 21-A MRSA §752. Two recall elections, Monday Feb. 1, the other Friday Feb. 5. If voters go to the town office January 6 (better call first to be sure) ballots for both recall elections should be available.
The ballot design is prescribed by law 21-A MRSA §601. It must state, in some form, that each candidate for recall is voted on separately, yes or no, no matter whether on one ballot, or 2 individual ballots. Note: it is not a matter of choosing one candidate for recall over the other candidate. Each individual candidate for recall must receive a yes or no vote.
Call the Paris Town Office to see when all ballots will be ready for both recall elections. Then you can go and vote early on all 4 candidates at one time.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Has anyone called?
Has anyone called the town office (743-2501) to see when absentee ballots for the upcoming recall election(s) in Paris will be available?
By law, absentee ballots are to be ready 30 days before the corresponding referendum ballot election. (A recall election is simply an election with a different purpose - to see if voters want to: remove someone from office, as opposed to put someone into office. The same laws apply.)
A recall election on February 1st should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 4th, or so; a recall election on February 5th should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 6th , or so.
Absentee ballots are available to registered voters who:
(1) wish to vote before the polling day, in the town office, in the presence of the town clerk;
or
(2) wish to vote but know they cannot get to the polls because of health reasons and need someone to bring them a ballot and return it to the town clerk for them;
or
(3) wish to vote but know they will be out of town on the polling day;
or
(4) simply wish to take the ballot home to study before returning it to the town clerk with the voting choice(s) marked.
There are specific legal steps for absentee ballot voting, as well as for the way those votes are counted. There is also a legal process for how voters can check on the recording of such votes. Call and ask the Town Clerk how - and when - you can vote by absentee ballot in the Town of Paris.
By law, absentee ballots are to be ready 30 days before the corresponding referendum ballot election. (A recall election is simply an election with a different purpose - to see if voters want to: remove someone from office, as opposed to put someone into office. The same laws apply.)
A recall election on February 1st should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 4th, or so; a recall election on February 5th should, then, have absentee ballots ready by January 6th , or so.
Absentee ballots are available to registered voters who:
(1) wish to vote before the polling day, in the town office, in the presence of the town clerk;
or
(2) wish to vote but know they cannot get to the polls because of health reasons and need someone to bring them a ballot and return it to the town clerk for them;
or
(3) wish to vote but know they will be out of town on the polling day;
or
(4) simply wish to take the ballot home to study before returning it to the town clerk with the voting choice(s) marked.
There are specific legal steps for absentee ballot voting, as well as for the way those votes are counted. There is also a legal process for how voters can check on the recording of such votes. Call and ask the Town Clerk how - and when - you can vote by absentee ballot in the Town of Paris.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Finally, a recall election in Paris...
...actually two of them. The selectmen have scheduled the following:
Monday, February 1, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman David Ivey and Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick
Friday, February 5, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman Troy Ripley and Selectman Ray Glover
A secret ballot referendum means that the polls will be open all day on these dates, and that absentee ballots will be available for both of these recall elections. The law prescribes the dates that absentee ballots must be available. The place for each election has not been made public as of this posting. The Paris Town Office, 743-2501, can provide the information for availability of absentee ballots and location of the elections.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman David Ivey and Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick
Friday, February 5, 2010
Secret Ballot Recall Election for Selectman Troy Ripley and Selectman Ray Glover
A secret ballot referendum means that the polls will be open all day on these dates, and that absentee ballots will be available for both of these recall elections. The law prescribes the dates that absentee ballots must be available. The place for each election has not been made public as of this posting. The Paris Town Office, 743-2501, can provide the information for availability of absentee ballots and location of the elections.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Third meeting in ten days...
Friday 12-18-09 at 5pm, Paris Town Office. You guessed it - a selectmen's meeting. Agenda does not mention the word, but "emergency" meeting has been mentioned.
What possible emergency could be happening in this town? Perhaps a fire burned out a household and family? Perhaps another individual has been laid off, and everything he/she owned has been repossessed? Perhaps there has been a death as a result of an act of violence?
Or, perhaps, a certain few who had in mind to "take back our town and run it the way we want," [quote of an individual on a special committee appointed to assist Paris' Planing Board in the early spring of 2007] are frantically trying to grab the dregs of what they thought their limitless power was forever going to be.
Regardless, the citizens are not intended to know. Anything to be discussed will be in executive session. Imagine that...
Who is kidding whom?
What possible emergency could be happening in this town? Perhaps a fire burned out a household and family? Perhaps another individual has been laid off, and everything he/she owned has been repossessed? Perhaps there has been a death as a result of an act of violence?
Or, perhaps, a certain few who had in mind to "take back our town and run it the way we want," [quote of an individual on a special committee appointed to assist Paris' Planing Board in the early spring of 2007] are frantically trying to grab the dregs of what they thought their limitless power was forever going to be.
Regardless, the citizens are not intended to know. Anything to be discussed will be in executive session. Imagine that...
Who is kidding whom?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Does the law matter?
Living in a society - as opposed to a huge string of hermit cottages running along a mountainside - requires some means for the ordering of things: the law of the jungle, perhaps, or a dictatorship; or some form of democracy.
The town of Paris falls under the description of a democracy.
Consider the following excerpts from two of our elected officials at Monday's selectmen's meeting:
*Context: One official had signed petitions to oust 2 fellow selectmen, and was preparing to vote as a board member on sending those recall questions on to the voters.
[editor's note: Documents provided all 5 selectmen in this instance included (a) copy of one page from each of 2 separate petitions to recall 2 selectmen, Official #1's signature on each page; (b) copy of voter registration list showing only one voter in Paris with that name; (c) copy of MMA directive; (d) copy of Paris Selectmen Bylaws.]
Official #1 - "Can I speak? I signed it right out in public. I didn't care who knows about it."
Could a translation be: "It doesn't matter if I break the rules - or a law - if I'm up front about it"?
*Context: Continuing the example above, a citizen has asked Official #2 if he has reviewed the documented material submitted (by the citizen).
Official #2 - "See, this is the same logic you're trying to use, (Citizen): circular. The answer is (Official #1)'s signature didn't remove anybody."
(Citizen agrees.)
Official #2 - "So if (Official #1)'s vote was the deciding vote to remove somebody or to appoint somebody..."
(Citizen interrupts) "He can't even take part in the discussion if there's bias. So how can he vote on something? He shouldn't even take part in the discussion if there's bias shown."
Could a translation of Official #2's statements be: "I can twist your words, and I can shape the law into what I need for the moment"?
Maine statutes and local laws provide our structure; they advise, direct, and apply to all of us. Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will or won't abide by.
The town of Paris falls under the description of a democracy.
Consider the following excerpts from two of our elected officials at Monday's selectmen's meeting:
*Context: One official had signed petitions to oust 2 fellow selectmen, and was preparing to vote as a board member on sending those recall questions on to the voters.
[editor's note: Documents provided all 5 selectmen in this instance included (a) copy of one page from each of 2 separate petitions to recall 2 selectmen, Official #1's signature on each page; (b) copy of voter registration list showing only one voter in Paris with that name; (c) copy of MMA directive; (d) copy of Paris Selectmen Bylaws.]
Official #1 - "Can I speak? I signed it right out in public. I didn't care who knows about it."
Could a translation be: "It doesn't matter if I break the rules - or a law - if I'm up front about it"?
*Context: Continuing the example above, a citizen has asked Official #2 if he has reviewed the documented material submitted (by the citizen).
Official #2 - "See, this is the same logic you're trying to use, (Citizen): circular. The answer is (Official #1)'s signature didn't remove anybody."
(Citizen agrees.)
Official #2 - "So if (Official #1)'s vote was the deciding vote to remove somebody or to appoint somebody..."
(Citizen interrupts) "He can't even take part in the discussion if there's bias. So how can he vote on something? He shouldn't even take part in the discussion if there's bias shown."
Could a translation of Official #2's statements be: "I can twist your words, and I can shape the law into what I need for the moment"?
Maine statutes and local laws provide our structure; they advise, direct, and apply to all of us. Individual citizens do not get to pick and choose which laws they will or won't abide by.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Direction or disarray?
Hard to find enough facts to capture from the 12-14-09 selectmen's meeting. Six months of this "different direction." Direction?
We had some non votes; several non decisions; a fair amount of unfinished, table-until-the-next-meeting topics.
Was this disarray? Is there a plan, but we're missing it?
We had a chairman, who, if wanting to make some little point, had to physically lean out past the vice chair - who, himself, wanted to make many major points - and whose back was squarely in the face of the chairman most of time.
We had a vice chair who, in the effort to make some of his points, presented vague time lines, incomplete information, and un-researched financial forecasts to well placed questions from another selectman who had actually read the material all 5 selectmen had in front of them.
Tonight, as so often during the last 6 months, there seemed to be laws, if not favorable to the 3-2 split majority, that were "only one opinion." Rules and ethical questions were ok to ignore if the person "did it [the violation] out in the open...didn't try to hide it."
A certain selectman's signature created an ethical question re. his ability to vote on a particular issue, thus creating a dilemma for the 3-2 split majority's agenda. One well prepared citizen from the floor brought documents and a well-reasoned argument; a second well-prepared statement followed from an individual who has somehow managed to escape the rampage of the Ivey Termination and Expulsion decree; both citizens firmly addressed the situation that had the board headed toward ethical derailment.
At that point there was an almost imperceptible change in the atmosphere. The focus on agenda driven items seemed to waver.
Postures stiffened; tight jaws, flushed faces, quickened speech began to appear at the front table for some. Sentences became even more circular than before, and in one or two places there was the suggestion of a stammer. Were some folks flustered?
Was this disarray? If there can't be bending of laws and successful bullying and prepackaged decisions, are things coming unraveled? Can an agenda driven largely by anger and vindictiveness survive?
Disarray - things out of alignment; disjointed approach; crooked lines of thought or logic; a fumbling for words or reasoning?
So, tonight, did we see a different direction? or disarray?
We had some non votes; several non decisions; a fair amount of unfinished, table-until-the-next-meeting topics.
Was this disarray? Is there a plan, but we're missing it?
We had a chairman, who, if wanting to make some little point, had to physically lean out past the vice chair - who, himself, wanted to make many major points - and whose back was squarely in the face of the chairman most of time.
We had a vice chair who, in the effort to make some of his points, presented vague time lines, incomplete information, and un-researched financial forecasts to well placed questions from another selectman who had actually read the material all 5 selectmen had in front of them.
Tonight, as so often during the last 6 months, there seemed to be laws, if not favorable to the 3-2 split majority, that were "only one opinion." Rules and ethical questions were ok to ignore if the person "did it [the violation] out in the open...didn't try to hide it."
A certain selectman's signature created an ethical question re. his ability to vote on a particular issue, thus creating a dilemma for the 3-2 split majority's agenda. One well prepared citizen from the floor brought documents and a well-reasoned argument; a second well-prepared statement followed from an individual who has somehow managed to escape the rampage of the Ivey Termination and Expulsion decree; both citizens firmly addressed the situation that had the board headed toward ethical derailment.
At that point there was an almost imperceptible change in the atmosphere. The focus on agenda driven items seemed to waver.
Postures stiffened; tight jaws, flushed faces, quickened speech began to appear at the front table for some. Sentences became even more circular than before, and in one or two places there was the suggestion of a stammer. Were some folks flustered?
Was this disarray? If there can't be bending of laws and successful bullying and prepackaged decisions, are things coming unraveled? Can an agenda driven largely by anger and vindictiveness survive?
Disarray - things out of alignment; disjointed approach; crooked lines of thought or logic; a fumbling for words or reasoning?
So, tonight, did we see a different direction? or disarray?
Friday, December 11, 2009
And The Next Meeting...
...for Paris Selectmen to continue with meaty subjects is:
Monday Dec. 14, 7PM at the Paris Fire Station. See agenda.
Item #6 Action on Settlement Offer in Law Suit
But wait - wasn't that already discussed in a recent newspaper article? Didn't say where information from plaintiff's lawyer was obtained. Alas. Front table was pretty empty for 30 minutes or more during executive session. Could anyone from that table have left a document in convenient view (from the opening of the meeting up until selectmen returned from the executive session, and later) in just the right spot for a quick photo op? Just behind the gentleman's name sign?
Item #9 Special Town Meeting
The wording indicates a plan has been made - and simply awaits the implementing. Why have an open discussion with hard questions about issues that would require some investigation into: what is accurate, what is in the best interest of the whole town, what are options, what are real costs? Why look for unbiased answers? Why not just schedule a meeting and invite friends who will vote for an agenda set by some who are in a real hurry to get something done...before... what? [Divert & Manipulate 12-1-09]
Item #12 Town Mgr. Contract
What surprises await the citizenry here? Have the drafters of this contract-to-be-discussed carelessly dismissed the possibility of the town having to pay unknown amounts in a law suit where there are still questions about the status of the previous manager? How can these drafters think they know the future? How can they think they are so infallible that they do not have to consider the possibility of having to pay these unknown amounts?
Or are they just so angry that they do not care?
And who pays for their game?
One wonders how a vendetta against a former manager comes together: is one of the steps to bring in a different manager, to...what? Make the town better? Make the administration more manageable? Make special agendas more feasible? So many choices....
So, has a contract already been written up? What about the terms of this contract-to-be-discussed? Will there be a probationary period? A vendetta, (a decision made in spite) would suggest not; an immovable object would be necessary.
In a vendetta, who bears the responsibility if the plans go awry?
This is not a third world village. The citizens in this town are willing and able to ask questions, and will not be satisfied with half answers, non-answers, or lies.
Plan to come Monday. The above items are but a few of the meaty subjects.
Monday Dec. 14, 7PM at the Paris Fire Station. See agenda.
Item #6 Action on Settlement Offer in Law Suit
But wait - wasn't that already discussed in a recent newspaper article? Didn't say where information from plaintiff's lawyer was obtained. Alas. Front table was pretty empty for 30 minutes or more during executive session. Could anyone from that table have left a document in convenient view (from the opening of the meeting up until selectmen returned from the executive session, and later) in just the right spot for a quick photo op? Just behind the gentleman's name sign?
Item #9 Special Town Meeting
The wording indicates a plan has been made - and simply awaits the implementing. Why have an open discussion with hard questions about issues that would require some investigation into: what is accurate, what is in the best interest of the whole town, what are options, what are real costs? Why look for unbiased answers? Why not just schedule a meeting and invite friends who will vote for an agenda set by some who are in a real hurry to get something done...before... what? [Divert & Manipulate 12-1-09]
Item #12 Town Mgr. Contract
What surprises await the citizenry here? Have the drafters of this contract-to-be-discussed carelessly dismissed the possibility of the town having to pay unknown amounts in a law suit where there are still questions about the status of the previous manager? How can these drafters think they know the future? How can they think they are so infallible that they do not have to consider the possibility of having to pay these unknown amounts?
Or are they just so angry that they do not care?
And who pays for their game?
One wonders how a vendetta against a former manager comes together: is one of the steps to bring in a different manager, to...what? Make the town better? Make the administration more manageable? Make special agendas more feasible? So many choices....
So, has a contract already been written up? What about the terms of this contract-to-be-discussed? Will there be a probationary period? A vendetta, (a decision made in spite) would suggest not; an immovable object would be necessary.
In a vendetta, who bears the responsibility if the plans go awry?
This is not a third world village. The citizens in this town are willing and able to ask questions, and will not be satisfied with half answers, non-answers, or lies.
Plan to come Monday. The above items are but a few of the meaty subjects.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Worth a thousand words...
That old saying about what pictures are worth.... And now DVDs are trumping that.
Monday's Selectmen's meeting was digitally recorded, as are all Paris selectmen's meetings, by and for NPC-TV. The recording offers believe-it-or-not-drama for your viewing pleasure. Camera work is well done, catching fiddly fingers, exchanged glances, body language , facial expressions, tone of voice....
Harder to keep lies and trickery going when people can see and hear for themselves what's happened, rather than trying to figure things out only by reading about them in newspapers or on-line commentaries.
If one is interested, DVDs can be purchased from the NPC-TV office in Norway; but there are public viewings for those with cable hookup. Our understanding for the viewing schedule, cable channel 11: Tuesdays (at 4 pm) and Sunday (at 6:30 pm). If there is a change, or if an additional viewing might be offered, The Paris Reporter will follow up.
Monday's Selectmen's meeting was digitally recorded, as are all Paris selectmen's meetings, by and for NPC-TV. The recording offers believe-it-or-not-drama for your viewing pleasure. Camera work is well done, catching fiddly fingers, exchanged glances, body language , facial expressions, tone of voice....
Harder to keep lies and trickery going when people can see and hear for themselves what's happened, rather than trying to figure things out only by reading about them in newspapers or on-line commentaries.
If one is interested, DVDs can be purchased from the NPC-TV office in Norway; but there are public viewings for those with cable hookup. Our understanding for the viewing schedule, cable channel 11: Tuesdays (at 4 pm) and Sunday (at 6:30 pm). If there is a change, or if an additional viewing might be offered, The Paris Reporter will follow up.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Notice: Location changed
Selectmen's meeting 12-07 has been moved to the Fire Station. No change in time - it's still 5:00pm.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Monday at 5
There won't be much room at the Paris Town Office for this special selectmen's meeting 12-07. Thus the 5pm time? Who would be bothered? Nothing going on the citizenry might care about.
Just the deadline for setting the date for a recall election for 2 selectmen. Or maybe 4?
Just a discussion about pending litigation; agenda doesn't even mention which litigation. And no citizen in Paris could possibly guess....
No mention whether Town Attorney Hole will appear. No one's telling. Maybe certain selectmen are concerned with $$ left in the amount budgeted for legal expenses. It could certainly be a savings if there could be a short cut, say, don't ask him anything; self diagnose and prescribe.
Or, perhaps ask him something; but only a very small audience (of one?...maybe two?...) gets the response, and translates it for everyone else, and takes out the part that says I advise, or I don't advise.
Or, perhaps, neglect to ask him to drive up from his Portland office to answer all those tiresome questions from the rest of the selectmen who have only had the opportunity to talk with him once [9-14-09, at Paris Elementary] since this whole law suit arrived on Paris' doorstep.
That would save not only money, but time, because critical questions for the Town of Paris still need to be answered at this juncture; if there is no lawyer in person to respond accurately, those questions can just be conveniently avoided...and forgotten....
Wonder if there's been written communication from Atty. Hole.... Interesting that the only references to and about Atty. Hole have come from Mr. Ivey, and maybe once from Mr.Ripley. Could Mr. Ivey, or Mr. Ripley, or perhaps Int. Mgr. Thorne, have forgotten to share anything with the rest of the board?
Perhaps Atty. Hole will be in attendance after all?
Oh, and are there any other tricky little items that couldn't be bothered getting themselves on the agenda...?
Come if you can. Probably camp out in the parking lot. Pretty small meeting room. Dress warm.
Just the deadline for setting the date for a recall election for 2 selectmen. Or maybe 4?
Just a discussion about pending litigation; agenda doesn't even mention which litigation. And no citizen in Paris could possibly guess....
No mention whether Town Attorney Hole will appear. No one's telling. Maybe certain selectmen are concerned with $$ left in the amount budgeted for legal expenses. It could certainly be a savings if there could be a short cut, say, don't ask him anything; self diagnose and prescribe.
Or, perhaps ask him something; but only a very small audience (of one?...maybe two?...) gets the response, and translates it for everyone else, and takes out the part that says I advise, or I don't advise.
Or, perhaps, neglect to ask him to drive up from his Portland office to answer all those tiresome questions from the rest of the selectmen who have only had the opportunity to talk with him once [9-14-09, at Paris Elementary] since this whole law suit arrived on Paris' doorstep.
That would save not only money, but time, because critical questions for the Town of Paris still need to be answered at this juncture; if there is no lawyer in person to respond accurately, those questions can just be conveniently avoided...and forgotten....
Wonder if there's been written communication from Atty. Hole.... Interesting that the only references to and about Atty. Hole have come from Mr. Ivey, and maybe once from Mr.Ripley. Could Mr. Ivey, or Mr. Ripley, or perhaps Int. Mgr. Thorne, have forgotten to share anything with the rest of the board?
Perhaps Atty. Hole will be in attendance after all?
Oh, and are there any other tricky little items that couldn't be bothered getting themselves on the agenda...?
Come if you can. Probably camp out in the parking lot. Pretty small meeting room. Dress warm.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Continued...
In reference to the Paris Selectmen's 12-07-09 agenda in "Citizen Alert !!!" posted just below, the following information is intended simply as educational background for the reader. There has been no indication, one way or the other, at this time, whether Town Attorney Geoff Hole will attend the Monday session.
#6. Executive Session - Pursuant to Title 1, section 405(6)(E) to discuss pending litigation"
*Title 1, M.R.S.A., § 405(6)(E) relates to "Consultations between a body or agency and its attorney…."
* The Maine Municipal Association's explanation and directive, in its Municipal Officer's Manual (p. 97) says, "If the executive session will involve a discussion of a pending or possible law suit by the board and its attorney, the motion (to go into executive session) should at least indicate the general subject matter of the case and its title…. " It continues, "The attorney must be physically present at the meeting or at least be participating through a telephone conference call. A discussion of correspondence from the attorney…would not be justification for an executive session if the attorney wasn't also present."
#6. Executive Session - Pursuant to Title 1, section 405(6)(E) to discuss pending litigation"
*Title 1, M.R.S.A., § 405(6)(E) relates to "Consultations between a body or agency and its attorney…."
* The Maine Municipal Association's explanation and directive, in its Municipal Officer's Manual (p. 97) says, "If the executive session will involve a discussion of a pending or possible law suit by the board and its attorney, the motion (to go into executive session) should at least indicate the general subject matter of the case and its title…. " It continues, "The attorney must be physically present at the meeting or at least be participating through a telephone conference call. A discussion of correspondence from the attorney…would not be justification for an executive session if the attorney wasn't also present."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Citizen Alert!!!
Bright and shiny new time in the same old too small space (Town Office): Paris Selectmen meet this coming Monday, December 7 at 5 PM. See the agenda.
Recall discussed. Be sure to come and watch - and listen. No commenting, of course....
No mention yet of what happens with the regularly scheduled 12-14-09 meeting.
To be continued...
Recall discussed. Be sure to come and watch - and listen. No commenting, of course....
No mention yet of what happens with the regularly scheduled 12-14-09 meeting.
To be continued...
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Divert & Manipulate
Diversions. In Paris? Not parades filled with fun and laughter; not activities to showcase holiday music or craft fairs to showcase local talent. No. These diversions are beneficial to the community, bringing the community together in a positive way.
Diversion, in the sense of causing one to look in another direction, while something else is happening where one might not be looking. Diversion - meaning to draw attention away from.
Are there such diversions going on in Paris? Are there individuals seeking to throw sand in the gears and disturb and distort just the right situations to draw attention away from something(s) we shouldn't be noticing very much? Like noticing things happening in the municipal process, perhaps?
And what would attention need to be drawn away from, would you think?
Would attention need to be drawn away, from the fact that interviews started Monday11-30-09, for a new town manager, because there is a large legal question yet to be resolved in the status of the former town manager? A question that has a potential for costing the taxpayers a sizeable amount?
No looking. Not for you to see.
And speaking of the legal question, is there diversion, or worse, stonewalling, when citizens ask about whether the town attorney is able to speak freely about legal matters with all 5 selectmen, not just the 2?
How about the costs of all the above? No costs are ever mentioned. Are we not supposed to know or ask how much things cost - rather, are we expected to just open our taxpayer-wallets and shell out? Or are we to be kept so busy by endless crises erupting that we miss the window of opportunity to ask?
Focus would certainly not be welcome on the motives for, or the quality of, what passes for financial planning by the selectboard and interim town manager. Carelessly scraping together figures, in the hope of demonstrating a sound financial basis for hiring a tax-assessment company right this minute: could this hurry-up-and-do majority be serving another agenda? Who might benefit? And what happens if it can't happen before....? No one says.
Revaluation, in a thorough and well planned manner, has merit; the immediacy of this particular plan, however, is unsound - even reckless, at this point.
A new tank for a fire truck - a real need; a wise request. And if money needs to be moved to a different place in the budget to make it accessible for use, then Paris citizens should vote to do so. But why now? This has been a need for a good while; it has certainly been talked about before. Why now? At this particular moment? Points to be gained? With whom?
No looking closely: asking questions might translate to one not valuing the work of the firefighters and their needs. Asking any questions might indicate that one would welcome the risk of having one's house - as well as one's neighbor's - burn to the ground. Who's being manipulated here?
A bridge to be repaired? Of course unsafe bridges are not good. No one wants people to be unsafe, whether for walking or snowmobiling. But using public funds requires more than good intentions or favorite sports. What's the hurry? Before the sun sets? Along with these other plans for spending? And why no more details, or a chance for questions?
In recent years a few developers have added money to a recreational fund that is now being considered for tapping. This is public money, and the uses of it should be talked about by the public, in public. Chances are good many in the public might support it, if they get a chance to ask questions and have them answered. Again, why this push, now? What's coming up that makes this a project for right now? Any agenda being served by the 3-2 split to make points? Points for what, anyway?
Note: some of the same folks now pushing to use public money for this private snowmobile bridge are the very ones who closed significant portions of snowmobile trails last winter, when it looked as if support for the current 3-2 majority's campaign was flagging. Might this be an apology? A down-payment on continued support? A way for the contributors to that fund to get back the use of "their" money for something they like?
Whoops - no looking. Not for you. Look over there....
How about certain roads demanding to be taken over by the town? Oh - wait a minute - roads don't demand - they are impersonal objects. Rather, people who live and own land in areas serviced by certain roads: they are demanding. What is the expectation here? And exactly whose expectation is it? Why, at this juncture, is this issue coming up, again? It has been settled. Before. 3 times.
Why the sudden push all over again? Does someone need a new, immediate solution? How come? What happens if, as Mr. Hanley threatens in veiled tone, the town does get sued by citizens who have been told repeatedly that they are not being served? What then? Well, of course, there's that long waiting time for law suits to be resolved.... But, roads last quite a while. Why the push now? What's at stake now?
A fair amount of items not bearing too close a look. Diversions come in handy. Probably the more disruptive the better.
Diversion, in the sense of causing one to look in another direction, while something else is happening where one might not be looking. Diversion - meaning to draw attention away from.
Are there such diversions going on in Paris? Are there individuals seeking to throw sand in the gears and disturb and distort just the right situations to draw attention away from something(s) we shouldn't be noticing very much? Like noticing things happening in the municipal process, perhaps?
And what would attention need to be drawn away from, would you think?
Would attention need to be drawn away, from the fact that interviews started Monday11-30-09, for a new town manager, because there is a large legal question yet to be resolved in the status of the former town manager? A question that has a potential for costing the taxpayers a sizeable amount?
No looking. Not for you to see.
And speaking of the legal question, is there diversion, or worse, stonewalling, when citizens ask about whether the town attorney is able to speak freely about legal matters with all 5 selectmen, not just the 2?
How about the costs of all the above? No costs are ever mentioned. Are we not supposed to know or ask how much things cost - rather, are we expected to just open our taxpayer-wallets and shell out? Or are we to be kept so busy by endless crises erupting that we miss the window of opportunity to ask?
Focus would certainly not be welcome on the motives for, or the quality of, what passes for financial planning by the selectboard and interim town manager. Carelessly scraping together figures, in the hope of demonstrating a sound financial basis for hiring a tax-assessment company right this minute: could this hurry-up-and-do majority be serving another agenda? Who might benefit? And what happens if it can't happen before....? No one says.
Revaluation, in a thorough and well planned manner, has merit; the immediacy of this particular plan, however, is unsound - even reckless, at this point.
A new tank for a fire truck - a real need; a wise request. And if money needs to be moved to a different place in the budget to make it accessible for use, then Paris citizens should vote to do so. But why now? This has been a need for a good while; it has certainly been talked about before. Why now? At this particular moment? Points to be gained? With whom?
No looking closely: asking questions might translate to one not valuing the work of the firefighters and their needs. Asking any questions might indicate that one would welcome the risk of having one's house - as well as one's neighbor's - burn to the ground. Who's being manipulated here?
A bridge to be repaired? Of course unsafe bridges are not good. No one wants people to be unsafe, whether for walking or snowmobiling. But using public funds requires more than good intentions or favorite sports. What's the hurry? Before the sun sets? Along with these other plans for spending? And why no more details, or a chance for questions?
In recent years a few developers have added money to a recreational fund that is now being considered for tapping. This is public money, and the uses of it should be talked about by the public, in public. Chances are good many in the public might support it, if they get a chance to ask questions and have them answered. Again, why this push, now? What's coming up that makes this a project for right now? Any agenda being served by the 3-2 split to make points? Points for what, anyway?
Note: some of the same folks now pushing to use public money for this private snowmobile bridge are the very ones who closed significant portions of snowmobile trails last winter, when it looked as if support for the current 3-2 majority's campaign was flagging. Might this be an apology? A down-payment on continued support? A way for the contributors to that fund to get back the use of "their" money for something they like?
Whoops - no looking. Not for you. Look over there....
How about certain roads demanding to be taken over by the town? Oh - wait a minute - roads don't demand - they are impersonal objects. Rather, people who live and own land in areas serviced by certain roads: they are demanding. What is the expectation here? And exactly whose expectation is it? Why, at this juncture, is this issue coming up, again? It has been settled. Before. 3 times.
Why the sudden push all over again? Does someone need a new, immediate solution? How come? What happens if, as Mr. Hanley threatens in veiled tone, the town does get sued by citizens who have been told repeatedly that they are not being served? What then? Well, of course, there's that long waiting time for law suits to be resolved.... But, roads last quite a while. Why the push now? What's at stake now?
A fair amount of items not bearing too close a look. Diversions come in handy. Probably the more disruptive the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)