Clarification: Monday 12-12-10, TPR announced "We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau." TPR needs to be clear that Ms. Gendreau is not the treasurer; she is the deputy treasurer. Her legal title is Finance Clerk, Deputy Treasurer. [Annual Town Report 2008-2009, Paris Maine].
The legal title of Treasurer, Town of Paris, goes to Town Manager Tarr.
Nevertheless, Ms. Gendreau has resigned, and that is an item that Paris citizens overlook at their peril. She is - and was - a dedicated, responsible, competent professional, and she kept us stable (as stated last posting); and now we have lost her. Why would that be? And will we be losing others? Has anyone looked? The staff behind the hired manager is only a work force, only minions...only what keeps this town running.
There are those who ask questions, who look deeper; and there are those who don't - and will not.
Are things better in Paris now than a year ago? Who would be in a position to know? Have you been in the town office to look? Have you asked questions? Would you know if you heard the truth? or not?
There will be an interim finance officer coming in - TPR reported that Mgr. Tarr would act as interim; that is not strictly accurate, as the transcript below shows. [editor's note: There is a bad taste in Paris for the word "interim", i.e., the interim town manager after the vendetta firing of Town Manager Jackson.]
And then there is to be advertising for the permanent finance officer position. The interim officer who will somehow keep this town running... by handling just about everything... will fade into the sunset, and a new, handpicked individual will arrive on the scene.
Wait...handpicked by who...er whom??
Now why should TPR be so concerned about all of this? After all, the Paris Selectboard is on top of all of this. Hmmmm.... Refer to the statements above about asking questions.
Transcript, from beginning of Citizen Comments, Paris Selectboard meeting 12-13-10:
Chairman Glover: "Moving on to Citizen's Comments - Yes?
Citizen: "This is for Mgr. Tarr. I'm concerned about the money being managed in our town. What steps are you taking to replace Sharon Gendreau's position?"
Mgr. Tarr: "...Probably...Sharon will be replaced on an interim basis..."
Citizen: "By...?"
Mgr. Tarr: "I'm not sure. And...I just learned about this yesterday, so...I'm sorry - Friday.[editor's note: TPR wonders about this date....] So,...and then because of the highly sensitive nature of dealing with public finance, it's...not only will we be replacing, replacing her on a temporary basis, it takes quite a bit of time and work to find the right person on a permanent basis. So, it would be a two-step process - someone will be here before Sharon leaves, and...she will be available on an on-call basis for advice and so forth."
Citizen: "Who has oversight over this interim process?"
Mgr. Tarr: "I do."
Citizen: "And then, that's...then you will be answerable to the board on that, right? "
Mgr. Tarr: "Yes."
Citizen: (to the board) "And will there be oversight from the board, then? Yes?...I'm simply asking..."
Chair. G.: "What?"
Citizen: "Oversight, from the board, on this?"
More than one board member: "Yes."
There followed a bit of chatting among some board members about an individual who might be interested in an interim position...in this situation...losing the finance officer...and all...
Is anyone paying attention?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Concerns and Interests
Small group tonight on this December 13th. 5 sturdy selectboard members; 1 town manager; 1 faithful cameraman; 1 diligent reporter, 5 concerned citizens.
Questions got asked; warrants paid; new procedures were needed and tried; there was advocating and critiquing and explaining and .... All the things that should be in the public viewing of our municipal machine's functioning.
But, just as in the functioning of a car engine there are wrenches and oil filters and nuts and bolts, etc., critical to the functioning of that engine but not necessarily in the spotlight as separate items, so, too, there are things in the process of the municipal machine that are not right out in front - pieces that make the things in front go, but aren't all lined up for inspection right that minute. Pieces that can be over-looked if one doesn't look closer.
There are outward signs that can indicate areas that may be of real concern behind the scenes.
Whose interest is being served? A relevant question, for starters....
Consider the following:
The structure of our town, any municipality, is defined by its bylaws, excerpts of Paris' here. Generally speaking, the rules are set up to establish rules of conduct and procedures to make the town work. Legislative body elects Board who hires Manager who appoints Department Heads w/ board approval.
Meetings, even how the agendas are to be prepared are set out. Bylaws...Paris, Section 4 - Meetings: ...."Any Selectman or other citizen may request an item for inclusion in the agenda for a regular meeting by notifying the Town Manager by noon on the Thursday before the scheduled meeting. An agenda for each meeting shall be prepared by the Town Manager."
Tonight Selectman Kurtz faced Manager Tarr with refusing to put his requested item on the agenda; Manager Tarr responded that he didn't refuse, he wanted the item worded differently; Selectman Kurtz maintained it was his right to have the item worded as he asked; the item, however, did not appear on the agenda. [editor's note: the item, it appears, was to have an executive session to discuss the manager's duties, evidently in the context of how information is to be presented to the board.]
The discussion continued, and the items ended up being discussed anyway -in public; it did not to appear to be any information that had not been discussed before in public. In fact Mgr. Tarr said "we" had dealt with the information before....
It was not clear what his refusal to place the item on the agenda was actually intended to accomplish - he said he felt his rights were being violated. He said he told "Chairman Ray" that he was not going to put it on the agenda.
Was this a discussion on even ground? Or, was someone not doing what he was supposed to do?Was someone using Chairman Ray as the fall guy for not following procedure? (Chairman Ray did not take any part in the discussion.)
Selectboard member Smart pointed out that 3 board members on the previous board, no longer on the board, made a very bad habit of changing rules to suit their own purpose; and that Mgr. Tarr's choice to just decide to leave the item off the agenda caused her serious concern.
TPR, too.
The next critically serious concern:
We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau. Manager Tarr said that she resigned for personal reasons.
This is unfortunate for Paris for so many reasons - not the least of them her level of understanding of what goes on in the financial operation of our town. The multiple aspects of the position are staggering.
A citizen asked Mgr. Tarr what steps were being taken to fill her position? Mgr. Tarr said they would advertise. To the question of who would handle the interim position before permanent hiring? "Me," he answered.
Are there selectboard members prepared to give the right kind of oversight for this kind of situation?
In past postings TPR has referred to Manager Tarr's wearing of more than one hat [Dec.5 Continuing to track]; in this two hat business, extra work has to get sloughed off somewhere....who picks up the slack?
Who is asking questions about how things are managed in our town office? Our whole community is routed through there; who is making sure things are going on in the best way possible? Is anyone paying attention?
Ms. Gendreau is a dedicated, responsible, competent professional. She goes the extra mile and does that one extra thing. She has played a major role in keeping us stable in this transition between awful and maybe. Now here we are...just one more thing... in an already heavily loaded work place.
Caution....
Questions got asked; warrants paid; new procedures were needed and tried; there was advocating and critiquing and explaining and .... All the things that should be in the public viewing of our municipal machine's functioning.
But, just as in the functioning of a car engine there are wrenches and oil filters and nuts and bolts, etc., critical to the functioning of that engine but not necessarily in the spotlight as separate items, so, too, there are things in the process of the municipal machine that are not right out in front - pieces that make the things in front go, but aren't all lined up for inspection right that minute. Pieces that can be over-looked if one doesn't look closer.
There are outward signs that can indicate areas that may be of real concern behind the scenes.
Whose interest is being served? A relevant question, for starters....
Consider the following:
The structure of our town, any municipality, is defined by its bylaws, excerpts of Paris' here. Generally speaking, the rules are set up to establish rules of conduct and procedures to make the town work. Legislative body elects Board who hires Manager who appoints Department Heads w/ board approval.
Meetings, even how the agendas are to be prepared are set out. Bylaws...Paris, Section 4 - Meetings: ...."Any Selectman or other citizen may request an item for inclusion in the agenda for a regular meeting by notifying the Town Manager by noon on the Thursday before the scheduled meeting. An agenda for each meeting shall be prepared by the Town Manager."
Tonight Selectman Kurtz faced Manager Tarr with refusing to put his requested item on the agenda; Manager Tarr responded that he didn't refuse, he wanted the item worded differently; Selectman Kurtz maintained it was his right to have the item worded as he asked; the item, however, did not appear on the agenda. [editor's note: the item, it appears, was to have an executive session to discuss the manager's duties, evidently in the context of how information is to be presented to the board.]
The discussion continued, and the items ended up being discussed anyway -in public; it did not to appear to be any information that had not been discussed before in public. In fact Mgr. Tarr said "we" had dealt with the information before....
It was not clear what his refusal to place the item on the agenda was actually intended to accomplish - he said he felt his rights were being violated. He said he told "Chairman Ray" that he was not going to put it on the agenda.
Was this a discussion on even ground? Or, was someone not doing what he was supposed to do?Was someone using Chairman Ray as the fall guy for not following procedure? (Chairman Ray did not take any part in the discussion.)
Selectboard member Smart pointed out that 3 board members on the previous board, no longer on the board, made a very bad habit of changing rules to suit their own purpose; and that Mgr. Tarr's choice to just decide to leave the item off the agenda caused her serious concern.
TPR, too.
The next critically serious concern:
We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau. Manager Tarr said that she resigned for personal reasons.
This is unfortunate for Paris for so many reasons - not the least of them her level of understanding of what goes on in the financial operation of our town. The multiple aspects of the position are staggering.
A citizen asked Mgr. Tarr what steps were being taken to fill her position? Mgr. Tarr said they would advertise. To the question of who would handle the interim position before permanent hiring? "Me," he answered.
Are there selectboard members prepared to give the right kind of oversight for this kind of situation?
In past postings TPR has referred to Manager Tarr's wearing of more than one hat [Dec.5 Continuing to track]; in this two hat business, extra work has to get sloughed off somewhere....who picks up the slack?
Who is asking questions about how things are managed in our town office? Our whole community is routed through there; who is making sure things are going on in the best way possible? Is anyone paying attention?
Ms. Gendreau is a dedicated, responsible, competent professional. She goes the extra mile and does that one extra thing. She has played a major role in keeping us stable in this transition between awful and maybe. Now here we are...just one more thing... in an already heavily loaded work place.
Caution....
Sunday, December 12, 2010
On Monday...
...Paris selectboard will meet at 7pm 12-13-10, at the town office. Agenda posted here. Readers will note that the now infamous golf cart discussion will be included, again, #11. Doesn't seem to be listed under unfinished business (original topic came up at the two previous meetings)... perhaps there is to be a new approach to this brought-up-before... tabled... unfinished-because-it-needed-more-information old business? Thus it becomes new business...?
And item #6b. employee resignation. Mmm...yes...
However, in the interest of continuing to take stock, to see what is working in Paris at this moment and what is not...back to #11. Not to beat a dead horse...but there is a point of interest to focusing a bit more on what might be behind the board's concern in this issue. TPR does not believe that the selectboard is refusing to support preventive measures that will make our population safer. The target(s) of concern in the agenda item appear to have become the individuals themselves, the ones bringing up the item; and the process, in fact perhaps even the thinking behind the process, that the individuals have now used more than once in their approach to the selectboard. [editor's note: see Backtracking, TPR 11-29-10]
The Advertiser Democrat, 12-09-10, p.4A, published well-put-together coverage of the 12-06-10 selectboard meeting's discussion of the issue. See Matt Hongoltz-Hetling's "Open Ledgers Insure Transparency in Paris."
Note the last 2 sections, excerpts printed here from Manager Tarr's comments:
"The current board wants more involvement in financial matters...It appears that they will reserve for themselves the right to approve all expenditures..."
"This is fine, as long as it is clearly articulated, which the emerging purchasing policy will do...However, it is still a couple of months away from a final version."
TPR poses the following questions concerning management skills, and who should be checking on these skills, if we are paying with taxpayer money for someone to use such:
*Last sentence in Manager Tarr's comments "...still a couple of months away..." : So, for the next couple of months management cannot use common sense, cannot possibly know what to do - or... could it be...can still use that excuse to do whatever he feels like until told otherwise on paper...?
*"More involvement in financial matters..." Well how dare they? How dare the selectboard look over the shoulder of an employee in whom it is beginning to look as if they do not have total confidence? How dare they consider that taxpayers might be getting concerned?
*And consider this:
Is the manager just now getting the message that the selectboard wants to be in the loop? Where has he been? How hard is that? Do we need to list for him all the items the board has brought to his attention - that the rest of us already remember? Current Purchasing Policy or not.
*Consider the difficulty if Paris has a manager who cannot think outside the printed page... or uses that for an excuse.
And item #6b. employee resignation. Mmm...yes...
However, in the interest of continuing to take stock, to see what is working in Paris at this moment and what is not...back to #11. Not to beat a dead horse...but there is a point of interest to focusing a bit more on what might be behind the board's concern in this issue. TPR does not believe that the selectboard is refusing to support preventive measures that will make our population safer. The target(s) of concern in the agenda item appear to have become the individuals themselves, the ones bringing up the item; and the process, in fact perhaps even the thinking behind the process, that the individuals have now used more than once in their approach to the selectboard. [editor's note: see Backtracking, TPR 11-29-10]
The Advertiser Democrat, 12-09-10, p.4A, published well-put-together coverage of the 12-06-10 selectboard meeting's discussion of the issue. See Matt Hongoltz-Hetling's "Open Ledgers Insure Transparency in Paris."
Note the last 2 sections, excerpts printed here from Manager Tarr's comments:
"The current board wants more involvement in financial matters...It appears that they will reserve for themselves the right to approve all expenditures..."
"This is fine, as long as it is clearly articulated, which the emerging purchasing policy will do...However, it is still a couple of months away from a final version."
TPR poses the following questions concerning management skills, and who should be checking on these skills, if we are paying with taxpayer money for someone to use such:
*Last sentence in Manager Tarr's comments "...still a couple of months away..." : So, for the next couple of months management cannot use common sense, cannot possibly know what to do - or... could it be...can still use that excuse to do whatever he feels like until told otherwise on paper...?
*"More involvement in financial matters..." Well how dare they? How dare the selectboard look over the shoulder of an employee in whom it is beginning to look as if they do not have total confidence? How dare they consider that taxpayers might be getting concerned?
*And consider this:
Is the manager just now getting the message that the selectboard wants to be in the loop? Where has he been? How hard is that? Do we need to list for him all the items the board has brought to his attention - that the rest of us already remember? Current Purchasing Policy or not.
*Consider the difficulty if Paris has a manager who cannot think outside the printed page... or uses that for an excuse.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Continuing to track
A great deal of 2009 - 2010 saw the municipality of Paris with figurative pant legs rolled up, muck boots slogging through a lot of serious structural dilemmas all at once, including, in spring 2010, the culmination of events surrounding the solid waste disposal system, NPSW (Norway Paris Solid Waste).
No need to drag out well worn frustrations and arguments, or to repeat well documented information; but, for the sake of taking stock, it is helpful to have a timeline to keep things in perspective. The sources of the documentation are listed, but not posted in TPR at this time, simply noted for point of accuracy.
Timeline:
*2-18-10 (The Advertiser Democrat) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met with Atty. Robert Crawford of Bernstein Shur, and confronted the issue of appointed board members not doing what they were supposed to do. The topic was what Atty. Crawford put as needing to "Right the ship;"
*2-25-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met, once again, and dismissed the sitting NPSW board, and appointed their respective town managers, David Holt (Norway) and Phillip Tarr (Paris) to run the operation on an emergency basis - until things were sorted out and a newly appointed board could be put in place. Mgr. Tarr acted as president, Mgr. Holt as treasurer.
*4-14-10 (documents presented by Kathy Tyson of Runyon, Kersteen, & Oullette, auditors) A limited internal control review was presented to shed light on how things should work - as well as some recommendations. Both managers, plus several selectboard members from both towns were in attendance;
*6 -29-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Paris selectboard appointed 2 new members to the NPSW board: Barbara Payne, and David Stanley. The selectboard reappointed Mgr. Tarr to the board as well. Norway made their new appointments July 1, and also reappointed Mgr. Holt.
*7-7-10 (agenda of NPSW meeting, and audience witness) Officers were elected from the appointed board members. One of the newly appointed board members pointed out that it was inappropriate for either of the 2 town managers to serve as officers on this new NPSW board since the managers represented towns that are served by the organization. In fact the new member questioned the 2 managers even being voting members. Six (out of the newly appointed 7) board members were present, and the new board member's concern was out-voted.
Mgr. Tarr spoke strongly about wanting to continue on that board as president, even though not a resident of Paris as the other appointed Paris board members are. In spite of the new member's concern, Tarr was elected by the board members to serve as president of the NPSW board; Mgr. Holt was not re elected as treasurer, however, and D. Stanley was elected to serve in that capacity.
Returning to the question asked by the new board member, above: is it appropriate for a town manager - or two of them, in this case - to serve as a voting member, or, even more to the point, as a president - on the board of an organization that serves and is funded by the town being run by said manager?
The emergency basis for that original arrangement was a 4 month interval with specific needs, and both towns are fortunate that their respective managers were willing - and able - to take over and bring things along to a reasonable juncture. If there were extra duties for any staff members in the respective town offices of these managers each wearing 2 hats, working on a temporary basis to clean up a difficult situation was just that: temporary. People will pitch in, things can get done if everybody helps. But not indefinitely....
[editor's note: As a disclaimer relevant to the following information, and other like information in our posts, it is not TPR's intent to debate or interpret law; only to point out, from time to time, the existence of various points of law.]
In the Municipal Officer's Manual,published by Maine Municipal Association, there is reference to the behavior of municipal officials and how these officials are to serve the interests of the public. [editor's note: MMA's opinions on standard practice are commonly accepted in most municipalities. ]
In Chapter 2, "Board of Municipal Officers," under the topic "Conflict of Interest," the manual states: Maine law encompasses four "conflict of interest" situations that can occur in municipal government: *financial conflict of interest; *incompatibility of office; *prohibited reappointments or employment; *bias.
Is there a case for "incompatibility of office" for Mgr. Tarr? MMA Manual's discussion on the topic is linked here.
Also consider this: Two administrative jobs, both time consuming, both serving the public, both requiring the additional support of others besides the administrator.
But. The taxpayers in Paris have hired a town manager, with a competitive salary, as well as generous benefits. The NPSW administrative office is not paid, as far as TPR understands. Are we taxpayers, therefore, subsidizing this second administrative position through the work of other town employees? And, is the paying job - the running of the town of Paris - getting short shrift? Are things getting done properly? And how would we know? Who would jeopardize their job to say so publicly?
Whose interest is being served?
There is a new regional grant program currently being explored using NPSW officials, spearheaded by its president; new options for handling of solid waste in general are on the horizon. The workload for the NPSW administrator is going to require more and more attention.
This is a situation that needs to be looked at by our elected officials in Paris.The responsibility for this falls squarely in their lap.
No need to drag out well worn frustrations and arguments, or to repeat well documented information; but, for the sake of taking stock, it is helpful to have a timeline to keep things in perspective. The sources of the documentation are listed, but not posted in TPR at this time, simply noted for point of accuracy.
Timeline:
*2-18-10 (The Advertiser Democrat) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met with Atty. Robert Crawford of Bernstein Shur, and confronted the issue of appointed board members not doing what they were supposed to do. The topic was what Atty. Crawford put as needing to "Right the ship;"
*2-25-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met, once again, and dismissed the sitting NPSW board, and appointed their respective town managers, David Holt (Norway) and Phillip Tarr (Paris) to run the operation on an emergency basis - until things were sorted out and a newly appointed board could be put in place. Mgr. Tarr acted as president, Mgr. Holt as treasurer.
*4-14-10 (documents presented by Kathy Tyson of Runyon, Kersteen, & Oullette, auditors) A limited internal control review was presented to shed light on how things should work - as well as some recommendations. Both managers, plus several selectboard members from both towns were in attendance;
*6 -29-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Paris selectboard appointed 2 new members to the NPSW board: Barbara Payne, and David Stanley. The selectboard reappointed Mgr. Tarr to the board as well. Norway made their new appointments July 1, and also reappointed Mgr. Holt.
*7-7-10 (agenda of NPSW meeting, and audience witness) Officers were elected from the appointed board members. One of the newly appointed board members pointed out that it was inappropriate for either of the 2 town managers to serve as officers on this new NPSW board since the managers represented towns that are served by the organization. In fact the new member questioned the 2 managers even being voting members. Six (out of the newly appointed 7) board members were present, and the new board member's concern was out-voted.
Mgr. Tarr spoke strongly about wanting to continue on that board as president, even though not a resident of Paris as the other appointed Paris board members are. In spite of the new member's concern, Tarr was elected by the board members to serve as president of the NPSW board; Mgr. Holt was not re elected as treasurer, however, and D. Stanley was elected to serve in that capacity.
Returning to the question asked by the new board member, above: is it appropriate for a town manager - or two of them, in this case - to serve as a voting member, or, even more to the point, as a president - on the board of an organization that serves and is funded by the town being run by said manager?
The emergency basis for that original arrangement was a 4 month interval with specific needs, and both towns are fortunate that their respective managers were willing - and able - to take over and bring things along to a reasonable juncture. If there were extra duties for any staff members in the respective town offices of these managers each wearing 2 hats, working on a temporary basis to clean up a difficult situation was just that: temporary. People will pitch in, things can get done if everybody helps. But not indefinitely....
[editor's note: As a disclaimer relevant to the following information, and other like information in our posts, it is not TPR's intent to debate or interpret law; only to point out, from time to time, the existence of various points of law.]
In the Municipal Officer's Manual,published by Maine Municipal Association, there is reference to the behavior of municipal officials and how these officials are to serve the interests of the public. [editor's note: MMA's opinions on standard practice are commonly accepted in most municipalities. ]
In Chapter 2, "Board of Municipal Officers," under the topic "Conflict of Interest," the manual states: Maine law encompasses four "conflict of interest" situations that can occur in municipal government: *financial conflict of interest; *incompatibility of office; *prohibited reappointments or employment; *bias.
Is there a case for "incompatibility of office" for Mgr. Tarr? MMA Manual's discussion on the topic is linked here.
Also consider this: Two administrative jobs, both time consuming, both serving the public, both requiring the additional support of others besides the administrator.
But. The taxpayers in Paris have hired a town manager, with a competitive salary, as well as generous benefits. The NPSW administrative office is not paid, as far as TPR understands. Are we taxpayers, therefore, subsidizing this second administrative position through the work of other town employees? And, is the paying job - the running of the town of Paris - getting short shrift? Are things getting done properly? And how would we know? Who would jeopardize their job to say so publicly?
Whose interest is being served?
There is a new regional grant program currently being explored using NPSW officials, spearheaded by its president; new options for handling of solid waste in general are on the horizon. The workload for the NPSW administrator is going to require more and more attention.
This is a situation that needs to be looked at by our elected officials in Paris.The responsibility for this falls squarely in their lap.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Backtracking
Spending...who's in charge of it in our town.... a place where the buck stops.... Now, to find just that right spot...
Back in April 2010: a fairly new town manager - new to Paris, anyway; and a need for a replacement police cruiser. A 2003 Chevy Impala appears on the horizon through the Surplus Property Program from the State of Maine. According to the purchase order from the town of Paris,4-01-10, as well as the invoice from the State of Maine's Bureau of General Services, 4-06-10, Paris then owed the State of Maine $3,950.
According to the Purchasing Policy in effect for Paris at that time, "The Municipal Officers prior to execution shall approve any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200." [and] "Any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200 must be competitively bid."
The $3950 appeared on warrant #86, which was on the agenda to be approved at the Paris selectboard meeting 5-10-10.
However, consider the following timeline:
4-1-10 purchase order from Town of Paris, signed by Police Chief Verrier;
4-1-10 receipt signed by Chief Verrier for a car purchased from Maine's Surplus Property Program; [note a stamped entry top right corner]
4-6-10 invoice from Bureau of General Services;
4-28-10 check cut by Paris to Treasurer, State of Maine for $3,950;
5-10-10 payment for purchased item authorized.
What's out of sequence here?
And, notice any competive bids?
No one stole a car at gun point, and no doubt the Paris police department needed the car. But. WHO is supposed to be calling the shots here? Perhaps this was a misunderstanding? New manager in town and all...? Perhaps the town manager told the police chief to handle it the way he did...perhaps vice versa... who knows? But the selectboard learned about it after the fact. What...what was everybody doing when they were supposed to be watching out for things? Was anyone at all minding the store?
And here we are 7 months later, the same players, all conducting business in the same old way. Whose interest is being served?
Back in April 2010: a fairly new town manager - new to Paris, anyway; and a need for a replacement police cruiser. A 2003 Chevy Impala appears on the horizon through the Surplus Property Program from the State of Maine. According to the purchase order from the town of Paris,4-01-10, as well as the invoice from the State of Maine's Bureau of General Services, 4-06-10, Paris then owed the State of Maine $3,950.
According to the Purchasing Policy in effect for Paris at that time, "The Municipal Officers prior to execution shall approve any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200." [and] "Any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200 must be competitively bid."
The $3950 appeared on warrant #86, which was on the agenda to be approved at the Paris selectboard meeting 5-10-10.
However, consider the following timeline:
4-1-10 purchase order from Town of Paris, signed by Police Chief Verrier;
4-1-10 receipt signed by Chief Verrier for a car purchased from Maine's Surplus Property Program; [note a stamped entry top right corner]
4-6-10 invoice from Bureau of General Services;
4-28-10 check cut by Paris to Treasurer, State of Maine for $3,950;
5-10-10 payment for purchased item authorized.
What's out of sequence here?
And, notice any competive bids?
No one stole a car at gun point, and no doubt the Paris police department needed the car. But. WHO is supposed to be calling the shots here? Perhaps this was a misunderstanding? New manager in town and all...? Perhaps the town manager told the police chief to handle it the way he did...perhaps vice versa... who knows? But the selectboard learned about it after the fact. What...what was everybody doing when they were supposed to be watching out for things? Was anyone at all minding the store?
And here we are 7 months later, the same players, all conducting business in the same old way. Whose interest is being served?
Well placed questions
How do we take stock, here in the town of Paris? What do we look at, what kinds of things do we measure, to see if things are better now in Paris?
Is better only the absence of crisis? The opposite of chaos in the streets? No yelling and screaming at public meetings? Are there specific areas where we can - and should - focus and gather information more objectively?
Let's focus on how our taxpayer money is spent, the actual, physical doing of it. We are clear on whose money it is...; but the actual process of how it gets spent - and who is responsible for the outcome. This would, of course, include the wider view of the massive planning that makes up the budget process for the town, and culminates in a final product brought to the voters at town meeting in June.
But the playing out of that budget happens in the actual day-to-day activities of the town's operation. The town's treasurer signs checks and keeps a meticulous accounting - all on public record - of the process after it reaches her.
But what kinds of checks and balances are in place to insure that the process - before it reaches her - is structured to safeguard our hard earned dollars ?
A topic of high interest during the last 2 selectboard meetings has been trying to understand the process used to spend certain grant money awarded to our Paris police department. Not only the process, but who in that process is accountable? Even if the issue is not legally questionable, it is troublesome not to know specifically how our money is being handled.
In August 2010, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant offered several towns in this area the opportunity to apply, as a group, for a grant from the Maine Department of Public Safety, for money to mount a project in their various communities. Utilizing the resources in his department, Paris Police Chief David Verrier submitted a grant for Paris. His proposal outlined a plan to offer police support of surveillance and assistance for the new walking trail being built by several community organizations, as well as a driver educational tool for Oxford Hills High School students.
The particular item to be purchased with grant money was a golf cart. The need is real, the proposal, as presented on 11-08 seemed to make sense; and this appears, on the face of it, to be a worthwhile project. Partial transcript of Paris selectboard meeting 11-08-10 linked here.
However, it was evidently just not that simple. By the 11-22 selectboard meeting, a wrinkle had appeared: the actual item on the warrant showed that the golf cart was more expensive than the selectboard had thought.
The grant amount awarded was $1608, and that was the amount discussed on 11-08. But the total warrant amount as listed 11-22 was $1899. Partial transcript Paris selectboard meeting 11-22-10 linked here. Did someone not ask the right question? Did someone not tell the whole story? Did someone not....
The purchase order was signed only by the police chief. And the town manager (chief financial officer, one understands...) says he didn't know a purchase order had happened. But that he and the chief did talk, on more than one occasion. On this topic. "I knew he was doing this." [Mgr. Tarr, 11-22-08.] One cannot know what they did talk about....
The bill of sale itself was initialed by the town manager.
A harangue from three select board members ensued - rightly so - and directed mostly at Chief Verrier, for leaving them out of the loop, or perhaps misleading them.
Selectman Kurtz, however, had a few will placed questions for Mgr. Tarr, on the line of who's in charge here.... and TPR has to agree the town manager did not select best management practice in this operation . Mgr. Tarr seemed full of ways to avoid responsibility for a wrongful process... and for not really knowing what was going on.
In fact he put a good bit of emphasis on the fact that there were no directions available- in a proper purchasing policy, for example - to make clear what his responsibility was. [editor's note: There is indeed a purchasing policy in place, approved in 2006; but even if the town manager did not consult it, or felt it was not explicit it enough, there will never be any policy written that substitutes for common sense.] One supposes, by his comments, then, that probably it was the police chief who didn't do the right thing...? Maybe. Could be. Who knows?
Perhaps this was just a miscommunication all around...perhaps it was just this one time....
Is better only the absence of crisis? The opposite of chaos in the streets? No yelling and screaming at public meetings? Are there specific areas where we can - and should - focus and gather information more objectively?
Let's focus on how our taxpayer money is spent, the actual, physical doing of it. We are clear on whose money it is...; but the actual process of how it gets spent - and who is responsible for the outcome. This would, of course, include the wider view of the massive planning that makes up the budget process for the town, and culminates in a final product brought to the voters at town meeting in June.
But the playing out of that budget happens in the actual day-to-day activities of the town's operation. The town's treasurer signs checks and keeps a meticulous accounting - all on public record - of the process after it reaches her.
But what kinds of checks and balances are in place to insure that the process - before it reaches her - is structured to safeguard our hard earned dollars ?
A topic of high interest during the last 2 selectboard meetings has been trying to understand the process used to spend certain grant money awarded to our Paris police department. Not only the process, but who in that process is accountable? Even if the issue is not legally questionable, it is troublesome not to know specifically how our money is being handled.
In August 2010, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant offered several towns in this area the opportunity to apply, as a group, for a grant from the Maine Department of Public Safety, for money to mount a project in their various communities. Utilizing the resources in his department, Paris Police Chief David Verrier submitted a grant for Paris. His proposal outlined a plan to offer police support of surveillance and assistance for the new walking trail being built by several community organizations, as well as a driver educational tool for Oxford Hills High School students.
The particular item to be purchased with grant money was a golf cart. The need is real, the proposal, as presented on 11-08 seemed to make sense; and this appears, on the face of it, to be a worthwhile project. Partial transcript of Paris selectboard meeting 11-08-10 linked here.
However, it was evidently just not that simple. By the 11-22 selectboard meeting, a wrinkle had appeared: the actual item on the warrant showed that the golf cart was more expensive than the selectboard had thought.
The grant amount awarded was $1608, and that was the amount discussed on 11-08. But the total warrant amount as listed 11-22 was $1899. Partial transcript Paris selectboard meeting 11-22-10 linked here. Did someone not ask the right question? Did someone not tell the whole story? Did someone not....
The purchase order was signed only by the police chief. And the town manager (chief financial officer, one understands...) says he didn't know a purchase order had happened. But that he and the chief did talk, on more than one occasion. On this topic. "I knew he was doing this." [Mgr. Tarr, 11-22-08.] One cannot know what they did talk about....
The bill of sale itself was initialed by the town manager.
A harangue from three select board members ensued - rightly so - and directed mostly at Chief Verrier, for leaving them out of the loop, or perhaps misleading them.
Selectman Kurtz, however, had a few will placed questions for Mgr. Tarr, on the line of who's in charge here.... and TPR has to agree the town manager did not select best management practice in this operation . Mgr. Tarr seemed full of ways to avoid responsibility for a wrongful process... and for not really knowing what was going on.
In fact he put a good bit of emphasis on the fact that there were no directions available- in a proper purchasing policy, for example - to make clear what his responsibility was. [editor's note: There is indeed a purchasing policy in place, approved in 2006; but even if the town manager did not consult it, or felt it was not explicit it enough, there will never be any policy written that substitutes for common sense.] One supposes, by his comments, then, that probably it was the police chief who didn't do the right thing...? Maybe. Could be. Who knows?
Perhaps this was just a miscommunication all around...perhaps it was just this one time....
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Taking stock
Looking at our municipal machine and its administrative function, here in the town of Paris, just where are we at the end of this November 2010?
A brief tally:
*One year and five-plus months since a newly elected selectboard came on the scene (6-22-09) with an agenda to fashion the town in a new order;
*One year and five months since an interim town manager was hired to assist them (7-01-09);
A brief tally:
*One year and five-plus months since a newly elected selectboard came on the scene (6-22-09) with an agenda to fashion the town in a new order;
*One year and five months since an interim town manager was hired to assist them (7-01-09);
*One year since more than 1500 Paris voters, in a general election (11-03-09), approved an ordinance for a recall election in the town of Paris;
*Eleven months since a full time town manager was hired (01-04-10). [editor's note: 2 members of the board that hired him still serve on the selectboard today, 11-28-10] ;
*Eleven months since 487 determined Paris voters gathered together, on a bitter cold night, for a special town meeting (01-08-10), and made it crystal clear that they called the shots, not a small group of individuals with a personal agenda;
*Ten months since two special recall elections (2-02-10 and 2-05-10) that saw two of the five selectmen on that board voted out of office by sizeable margins because they had lost the confidence of the voters;
*Nine months since a special election (3-16-10) replaced the two recalled selectmen;
*Five months since the regular election at the annual Paris town meeting (6-08-10) produced an additional individual to fill out the official 5 member selectboard.
A question - perhaps a statement, really - frequently heard here and there, and round about, both in the town of Paris, and beyond:
"Haven't heard anything; haven't seen anything in the papers. Guess things are better in Paris now. Right?"
Are things better?
"Haven't heard anything; haven't seen anything in the papers. Guess things are better in Paris now. Right?"
Are things better?
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Public road use and other topics
Monday 10-25-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at 7 PM in the town office. Public is welcome. Agenda here.
*The long awaited public discussion by the selectboard re. ATV use of certain public roads as connectors for some of their trails has been under small group discussion and negotiation. The expectation for this regularly scheduled meeting is to include an open discussion between board members, and to conclude with a final decision on the issue.
The original suggestion by some on the board was to wait and make a final decision at their regular December 13 meeting; but there were land owners who felt that the matter was more urgent, and needed to be dealt with before the ATV season was effectively over in December anyway.
*The Northern Border Grant, authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, addresses job creation, infrastructure improvements, and efforts to strengthen rural economy. It is designed to bring regional support to economically distressed areas; 12 of the 16 counties in Maine are eligible, including Oxford.
The topic is on the agenda to be presented by Linda Walbridge from Community Concepts. For more information, see press releases from Senator Olympia Snowe, and Maine Dept. of Economic Development.
*[editor's note on Town Manager's report, which, as is usually the case until the actual day of a meeting, has not yet been specified:
While the public does appreciate being reminded of upcoming events, deadlines, a new hiring, new rules and laws to consider, perhaps - the public does not wish, every meeting, a 20-30 minute session of accomplishments, new ideas and possibilities, or items that more than once have lead to board discussion and the need for action. If the manager has such items to present, they belong on the regular agenda.]
*Selectmen concerns. Paris citizens value their elected officials' ideas and perspectives. There must indeed be a venue for those concerns/thoughts/questions to be brought into the public view. It is realistic to have a catch-all sort of category in an agenda for last minute items - though it might more realistically be called "other."
Consider, however:
Items of importance, to the speaker, similar to Citizen Comments - though under the title of "Selectman Concerns" - have, more than once, been brought up under this umbrella, at the very end of the agenda, 2 1/2 or 3 hours in - and more - for a cable TV viewer, or after most of a live audience - often including the press - has gone home....
If an issue is important enough to be brought up at all, why is it not on the agenda proper? Or, at the very least, why is "selectmen concerns" not earlier in the agenda? When it would receive more attention? Surely this is not to sneak things in when no one notices? Nor could it be that our elected officials - also citizens - do not deserve prime time billing?
The devil is in the details.... How things are presented, how they are worded, how they are disclosed...all make a difference in how they are received/perceived by the public, and how they will be responded to. How things are presented affects the interaction between citizens, including elected officials, which, in itself, becomes part of the life force in any town.
*The long awaited public discussion by the selectboard re. ATV use of certain public roads as connectors for some of their trails has been under small group discussion and negotiation. The expectation for this regularly scheduled meeting is to include an open discussion between board members, and to conclude with a final decision on the issue.
The original suggestion by some on the board was to wait and make a final decision at their regular December 13 meeting; but there were land owners who felt that the matter was more urgent, and needed to be dealt with before the ATV season was effectively over in December anyway.
*The Northern Border Grant, authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, addresses job creation, infrastructure improvements, and efforts to strengthen rural economy. It is designed to bring regional support to economically distressed areas; 12 of the 16 counties in Maine are eligible, including Oxford.
The topic is on the agenda to be presented by Linda Walbridge from Community Concepts. For more information, see press releases from Senator Olympia Snowe, and Maine Dept. of Economic Development.
*[editor's note on Town Manager's report, which, as is usually the case until the actual day of a meeting, has not yet been specified:
While the public does appreciate being reminded of upcoming events, deadlines, a new hiring, new rules and laws to consider, perhaps - the public does not wish, every meeting, a 20-30 minute session of accomplishments, new ideas and possibilities, or items that more than once have lead to board discussion and the need for action. If the manager has such items to present, they belong on the regular agenda.]
*Selectmen concerns. Paris citizens value their elected officials' ideas and perspectives. There must indeed be a venue for those concerns/thoughts/questions to be brought into the public view. It is realistic to have a catch-all sort of category in an agenda for last minute items - though it might more realistically be called "other."
Consider, however:
Items of importance, to the speaker, similar to Citizen Comments - though under the title of "Selectman Concerns" - have, more than once, been brought up under this umbrella, at the very end of the agenda, 2 1/2 or 3 hours in - and more - for a cable TV viewer, or after most of a live audience - often including the press - has gone home....
If an issue is important enough to be brought up at all, why is it not on the agenda proper? Or, at the very least, why is "selectmen concerns" not earlier in the agenda? When it would receive more attention? Surely this is not to sneak things in when no one notices? Nor could it be that our elected officials - also citizens - do not deserve prime time billing?
The devil is in the details.... How things are presented, how they are worded, how they are disclosed...all make a difference in how they are received/perceived by the public, and how they will be responded to. How things are presented affects the interaction between citizens, including elected officials, which, in itself, becomes part of the life force in any town.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
What about our funds?
Late in the evening of Paris selectboard's regular meeting, 10-12 -10, Selectman Kurtz brought up a concern: "I have a very serious concern - what is for me a very serious concern. There is a designated and undesignated fund balance policy for the town of Paris Maine, policy # 5-2007, that was approved by Sharon Jackson on November 15, 2007, and was approved by the municipal officers November 15 2007..." [editor's note: Selectman Kurtz then goes on to name the officers, and to summarize, quite accurately, the policy, posted here .]
Briefly, the policy was established to plan for redirecting accumulated, unused money, not otherwise earmarked, "to maintain an undesignated fund balance no less than 12% and no more than 15% of the previous year's operating expenditures less debt service." This money would be available for the town to use, if needed, in certain circumstances; or, it could be redirected into reserve accounts for specific purposes. The bar was set high (the 12% -15% figures); the goal, when the policy was put in place, was to achieve that "bar" (building up a big enough fund balance). Reaching that goal certainly did not happen the next day, but it was reached.
Selectman Kurtz went on to say "It is my understanding that by spending the $50,000 out of the reserves this summer for the firemen's per diem operating expenses, this town violated the standing fund balance policy."
As summarized in the Advertiser Democrat 10-14-10, the time of the night at the meeting was late; and, since no one on the board had previously seen any of the material about the fund balance question, or was even aware that this concern would be brought up at this meeting, chairman Glover recommended that the topic be visited again when there had been time to review the information and give it due consideration.
It seems a fair question to ask, "Are we, as a town, spending responsibly?"
It is a far more pointed question to ask "Is our financial management in responsible hands?"
The waters become murky, here. In a municipal engine, there are many places money can be legitimately stored, and management is in a position to recommend and/or direct those decisions.
(a) money can be left over from state or federal funds, and invested in an independent account to accrue interest until needed for appropriate use, like the FEMA funds received for storm destroyed roads in 2008;
(b) the George Morton Trust, for example, has very specific terms on how money can be used by the town of Paris;
(c) the town's checking account, where tax money coming in, and all manner of other things, are kept until needed to pay bills.
It is not uncomplicated.
Any individual can gather information on what is supposed to happen; but it is not so easy to figure out what should have happened and didn't, or who was responsible for the widget that should have gone into a certain space but went missing.... The process is not a straight line, but a series of lines. And they must lie in sync.
If the gauntlet was thrown down to prove that a violation was made of Paris policy #5-2007, and one individual hopes to be the sole conqueror in that quest, this would be counterproductive. This town is set up to be run by a team. It takes more than one to make a team....
If, however, there is going to be a team effort, and perhaps a team investigation [editor's note: read that all selectmen knowing - up front - what's going on, everyone being privy to all dialogue between concerned parties, and the public being fully informed] into how our financial machine operates, and who is responsible for what duties under what circumstances, then, and only then, would there be merit for looking into what's going on in regards to the designated and undesignated fund balance in the town of Paris.
Briefly, the policy was established to plan for redirecting accumulated, unused money, not otherwise earmarked, "to maintain an undesignated fund balance no less than 12% and no more than 15% of the previous year's operating expenditures less debt service." This money would be available for the town to use, if needed, in certain circumstances; or, it could be redirected into reserve accounts for specific purposes. The bar was set high (the 12% -15% figures); the goal, when the policy was put in place, was to achieve that "bar" (building up a big enough fund balance). Reaching that goal certainly did not happen the next day, but it was reached.
Selectman Kurtz went on to say "It is my understanding that by spending the $50,000 out of the reserves this summer for the firemen's per diem operating expenses, this town violated the standing fund balance policy."
As summarized in the Advertiser Democrat 10-14-10, the time of the night at the meeting was late; and, since no one on the board had previously seen any of the material about the fund balance question, or was even aware that this concern would be brought up at this meeting, chairman Glover recommended that the topic be visited again when there had been time to review the information and give it due consideration.
It seems a fair question to ask, "Are we, as a town, spending responsibly?"
It is a far more pointed question to ask "Is our financial management in responsible hands?"
The waters become murky, here. In a municipal engine, there are many places money can be legitimately stored, and management is in a position to recommend and/or direct those decisions.
(a) money can be left over from state or federal funds, and invested in an independent account to accrue interest until needed for appropriate use, like the FEMA funds received for storm destroyed roads in 2008;
(b) the George Morton Trust, for example, has very specific terms on how money can be used by the town of Paris;
(c) the town's checking account, where tax money coming in, and all manner of other things, are kept until needed to pay bills.
It is not uncomplicated.
Any individual can gather information on what is supposed to happen; but it is not so easy to figure out what should have happened and didn't, or who was responsible for the widget that should have gone into a certain space but went missing.... The process is not a straight line, but a series of lines. And they must lie in sync.
If the gauntlet was thrown down to prove that a violation was made of Paris policy #5-2007, and one individual hopes to be the sole conqueror in that quest, this would be counterproductive. This town is set up to be run by a team. It takes more than one to make a team....
If, however, there is going to be a team effort, and perhaps a team investigation [editor's note: read that all selectmen knowing - up front - what's going on, everyone being privy to all dialogue between concerned parties, and the public being fully informed] into how our financial machine operates, and who is responsible for what duties under what circumstances, then, and only then, would there be merit for looking into what's going on in regards to the designated and undesignated fund balance in the town of Paris.
Monday, October 18, 2010
To fill you in
*There is no regularly scheduled Paris Selectboard meeting this week.
The board will meet in executive session - not open to the public except for the formal opening of the session - on Wednesday the 20th to plan and discuss the upcoming...in a while...later on...down the road....6 month evaluation of the town manager that was urgent in August but has become less urgent, evidently - since November begins month 11 of his employment. [editor's note: see the excerpt of a transcription of the 10-11-10 meeting in previous posting.]
*Currently Norway-Paris Cable TV is renegotiating their contract with Time Warner Cable, not uncommon in the tidying up and straightening around of affairs in the cable TV world from time to time.
Serving on the NPCTV committee, along with Norway reps, 3 individuals represent Paris. One of these individuals will be going around to check how many cable connections Time Warner is currently providing. This individual is currently being ferried around by Paris Highway Department's transport.
This is best use of Paris funds? Yes? Perhaps the NPCTV committee individual could shovel a bit of gravel in between times....
*Last Tuesday's combined meeting with Paris planning board and selectboard included a discussion about the possibility of a study group to look at the feasibility of zoning (aka "land management") for the town of Paris - a concept Norway and Oxford already have in place. Both local newspapers have given coverage.
Two or 3 individuals of the combined boards had reservations about the potential success of such an exploratory study. The combined boards were, in the end, convinced to take a step back before actually agreeing to convene a study group to look into things. They chose to take a straw vote to decide whether to even consider convening a study group.
The final decision was to include information in a flyer from the comprehensive plan - that the voters have already voted on and agreed with - and a box for yes or no, and have a straw vote for a study group at the November 2 polls.
If not too many "no's", then a study group could be arranged. Then research would happen; information would be gathered to educate folks; and perhaps Paris voters could make a real decision on whatever the question actually becomes - instead of a straw vote.
There is, however, one small... inconvenience.... The straw vote flyers just came back from the printers, and none of the 174 folks who have voted by absentee ballot so far have had a chance to weigh in - if they would have chosen to on this optional straw vote in the first place.
Because it is not wise for a town to disenfranchise any voter, the decision has been made to mail out 174 flyers, and include a self addressed stamped envelope in case the individuals want to weigh in on the straw vote.
So: 174 x $.88 (2 stamps per) = $153.12; plus 174 envelopes and address labels. Plus the extra time from office staff on top of what they already do; one too many more pieces of busy work because of inadequate planning. No big deal? Why worry? When should we worry? And the omnipotent being who broadcasts that signal would be...?
* The Designated and Undesignated Fund Balance Policy, Town of Paris, Maine Policy Number 5-2007, will become an item of discussion by Paris Selectboard in the near future. TPR will give the topic some focus in an upcoming posting.
*Important Public Forum:
Wednesday October 20 , 7-9 PM at the OHCHS auditorium, The Advertiser Democrat will sponsor a formal public debate on question #1 on the Nov. 2 ballot: "Do you want to allow table games and slot machines at a single site in Oxford County, subject to local approval, with part of the profits going to specific state, local, and tribal programs?"
The debate looks to be professionally set up, competently staffed, and fairly run. Come and bring a friend. This is a high impact issue for our locality, never mind the whole state. The Advertiser deserves high marks for backing it.
The board will meet in executive session - not open to the public except for the formal opening of the session - on Wednesday the 20th to plan and discuss the upcoming...in a while...later on...down the road....6 month evaluation of the town manager that was urgent in August but has become less urgent, evidently - since November begins month 11 of his employment. [editor's note: see the excerpt of a transcription of the 10-11-10 meeting in previous posting.]
*Currently Norway-Paris Cable TV is renegotiating their contract with Time Warner Cable, not uncommon in the tidying up and straightening around of affairs in the cable TV world from time to time.
Serving on the NPCTV committee, along with Norway reps, 3 individuals represent Paris. One of these individuals will be going around to check how many cable connections Time Warner is currently providing. This individual is currently being ferried around by Paris Highway Department's transport.
This is best use of Paris funds? Yes? Perhaps the NPCTV committee individual could shovel a bit of gravel in between times....
*Last Tuesday's combined meeting with Paris planning board and selectboard included a discussion about the possibility of a study group to look at the feasibility of zoning (aka "land management") for the town of Paris - a concept Norway and Oxford already have in place. Both local newspapers have given coverage.
Two or 3 individuals of the combined boards had reservations about the potential success of such an exploratory study. The combined boards were, in the end, convinced to take a step back before actually agreeing to convene a study group to look into things. They chose to take a straw vote to decide whether to even consider convening a study group.
The final decision was to include information in a flyer from the comprehensive plan - that the voters have already voted on and agreed with - and a box for yes or no, and have a straw vote for a study group at the November 2 polls.
If not too many "no's", then a study group could be arranged. Then research would happen; information would be gathered to educate folks; and perhaps Paris voters could make a real decision on whatever the question actually becomes - instead of a straw vote.
There is, however, one small... inconvenience.... The straw vote flyers just came back from the printers, and none of the 174 folks who have voted by absentee ballot so far have had a chance to weigh in - if they would have chosen to on this optional straw vote in the first place.
Because it is not wise for a town to disenfranchise any voter, the decision has been made to mail out 174 flyers, and include a self addressed stamped envelope in case the individuals want to weigh in on the straw vote.
So: 174 x $.88 (2 stamps per) = $153.12; plus 174 envelopes and address labels. Plus the extra time from office staff on top of what they already do; one too many more pieces of busy work because of inadequate planning. No big deal? Why worry? When should we worry? And the omnipotent being who broadcasts that signal would be...?
* The Designated and Undesignated Fund Balance Policy, Town of Paris, Maine Policy Number 5-2007, will become an item of discussion by Paris Selectboard in the near future. TPR will give the topic some focus in an upcoming posting.
*Important Public Forum:
Wednesday October 20 , 7-9 PM at the OHCHS auditorium, The Advertiser Democrat will sponsor a formal public debate on question #1 on the Nov. 2 ballot: "Do you want to allow table games and slot machines at a single site in Oxford County, subject to local approval, with part of the profits going to specific state, local, and tribal programs?"
The debate looks to be professionally set up, competently staffed, and fairly run. Come and bring a friend. This is a high impact issue for our locality, never mind the whole state. The Advertiser deserves high marks for backing it.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Coming things
Tuesday October 12, 7PM town office - joint Paris Planning Board and Selectboard meeting. Open to the public. There has been a citizen request to look at the matter of zoning for the town of Paris. The smaller town of Oxford has had zoning in place for a period of time, as do a number of other Maine towns.
If the consideration of a theoretical resort casino is to be put before the voters, certainly a practical nuts and bolts matter like zoning can be discussed, researched, and eventually put before the voters, as well.
Wednesday October 13, 7pm. Location? Call town office to see if public is welcome. Invested parties meet, once again, to work to a common understanding on use of public roadways by ATVs, all information gathered to be fed into consideration during the discussion by Paris selectboard 10-25-10 .
Wednesday October 20, executive session for Paris Selectboard. Not open to the public except for the 2 minutes of formal opening protocol. The meeting will be used to plan - again, more, for the eventual 6 month evaluation meeting (now in month 9) for the town manager. See transcript excerpt of 9-27 discussion below.
Monday October 25, 7pm, location uncertain - regular Paris Selectboard meeting. Public welcome. Includes discussion of ATV use of public roadways, hopefully using input from recent meetings with invested parties.
Wednesday November 17, location unknown, and most certainly not open to the public; the delivering of the actual evaluation to the town manager... month 10 and then some.
This 6 month evaluation that, back in August, seemed of serious import and necessary, despite such action for Paris town managers having little precedent.... and at least one selectman being in a very critical posture....
The following section of transcript is from the 9-27-10 selectboard meeting. [editor's note: the topic in the following transcript came under "selectmen concerns" about 9 pm in the meeting, item #17. Evidently the import of comments made at this point in the meeting are inversely proportional to the import of their value to the town's operating concerns.... Otherwise, comments of such import would... surely...be put on the agenda outright, along with ground water analysis and liquor licenses and warrant items.]
Selectman Kurtz: "Are we going to put this off until January? Make it a January review?"
Manager Tarr: "We're nearing a point there this makes sense, but I wouldn't stop at this point, because we're all learning some things about the process...either call this the annual...it may take 2 meetings before, you know, I do my own self assessment, and then my goals and objectives [editor's note: assigned several weeks ago...]as I see them; and then another meeting for you people to say this is what you agree with and what you don't agree with, or if...what you would like."
I think that type of process meritorious. It takes time, however...and...you know.... Anniversary date is January 4. So, if you did this, and made a decision in November, or early December, call it the 'Annual'."
Selectman Herrick: "Sure."
Sel. Kurtz: "With this crowd (chuckle, chuckle)...it does take time."
Manager T: "Well it certainly is different...but you people have gone through a huge transition this year, and you're working well as a group.... Yeah, it does take time."
WAIT A MINUTE: who is running this town? This new...town manager is the one to tell the selectboard they are doing a good job? To tell them he will "do... [his] goals and objectives" - for our future? As opposed to him fitting his goals and objectives into ways of meeting the needs of the town as set forth by the selectmen?
Of course a town manager hired into such a situation would want a mid-term evaluation - or any sort of evaluation - to be held later rather than sooner. Or not at all, if possible. Or, at the very least, on his terms.
Who should be leading whom?
If the consideration of a theoretical resort casino is to be put before the voters, certainly a practical nuts and bolts matter like zoning can be discussed, researched, and eventually put before the voters, as well.
Wednesday October 13, 7pm. Location? Call town office to see if public is welcome. Invested parties meet, once again, to work to a common understanding on use of public roadways by ATVs, all information gathered to be fed into consideration during the discussion by Paris selectboard 10-25-10 .
Wednesday October 20, executive session for Paris Selectboard. Not open to the public except for the 2 minutes of formal opening protocol. The meeting will be used to plan - again, more, for the eventual 6 month evaluation meeting (now in month 9) for the town manager. See transcript excerpt of 9-27 discussion below.
Monday October 25, 7pm, location uncertain - regular Paris Selectboard meeting. Public welcome. Includes discussion of ATV use of public roadways, hopefully using input from recent meetings with invested parties.
Wednesday November 17, location unknown, and most certainly not open to the public; the delivering of the actual evaluation to the town manager... month 10 and then some.
This 6 month evaluation that, back in August, seemed of serious import and necessary, despite such action for Paris town managers having little precedent.... and at least one selectman being in a very critical posture....
The following section of transcript is from the 9-27-10 selectboard meeting. [editor's note: the topic in the following transcript came under "selectmen concerns" about 9 pm in the meeting, item #17. Evidently the import of comments made at this point in the meeting are inversely proportional to the import of their value to the town's operating concerns.... Otherwise, comments of such import would... surely...be put on the agenda outright, along with ground water analysis and liquor licenses and warrant items.]
Selectman Kurtz: "Are we going to put this off until January? Make it a January review?"
Manager Tarr: "We're nearing a point there this makes sense, but I wouldn't stop at this point, because we're all learning some things about the process...either call this the annual...it may take 2 meetings before, you know, I do my own self assessment, and then my goals and objectives [editor's note: assigned several weeks ago...]as I see them; and then another meeting for you people to say this is what you agree with and what you don't agree with, or if...what you would like."
I think that type of process meritorious. It takes time, however...and...you know.... Anniversary date is January 4. So, if you did this, and made a decision in November, or early December, call it the 'Annual'."
Selectman Herrick: "Sure."
Sel. Kurtz: "With this crowd (chuckle, chuckle)...it does take time."
Manager T: "Well it certainly is different...but you people have gone through a huge transition this year, and you're working well as a group.... Yeah, it does take time."
WAIT A MINUTE: who is running this town? This new...town manager is the one to tell the selectboard they are doing a good job? To tell them he will "do... [his] goals and objectives" - for our future? As opposed to him fitting his goals and objectives into ways of meeting the needs of the town as set forth by the selectmen?
Of course a town manager hired into such a situation would want a mid-term evaluation - or any sort of evaluation - to be held later rather than sooner. Or not at all, if possible. Or, at the very least, on his terms.
Who should be leading whom?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
And for Wednesday...
...9-29-10, at 6:30 PM at the Paris fire station, the combined selectboards of Norway and Paris, as well as the Norway-Paris Solid Waste board, will meet to discuss the merits of single stream recycling as a form of waste management. Public is invited.
Paris town manager P. Tarr, also currently the chairman of the NPSW board, was wondering at the Paris selectboard meeting Monday, what the public would have to say.
Unfortunately, most folks might know something about solid waste management in general, but certainly far less about single stream recycling in particular.
Generally speaking, what we think of as garbage items would still have to be dealt with in their own way; but recyclable items would have a new way of being handled.
A general understanding of single stream might be, at a rudimentary level of explanation, that all recyclable items would be received into one huge receptacle, then shipped off to a huge sorting plant, sorted by machine, and then disposed of from there; vs. sorting glass from metals from paper, etc, as many of us do individually now, and then disposing of the results in various ways.
Some starter questions might be:
*If there is money to be made from this kind of solid waste management operation, where would it go?
*If, at the magical sorting center, things don't happen to get all sorted properly (there is mention of some things "falling through the cracks") what are the ecological ramifications, historically, with this kind of set up?
*What will happen to the set up we already have, the various components, the workers, the sites, etc?
*Is the Norway-Paris community doing such a poor job of sorting our solid waste that there is need to just put everything in a big bin and ship it off somewhere else to be sorted?
And, lest anyone think this is not about money, because a certain individual said plainly at a combined waste management meeting in spring 2010 that "There's a lot of money to be made in waste management...." let's be certain to double check:
*Who stands to profit?
*Is it only about money?
None of these questions is intended to infer that anything underhanded is afoot. But there is a huge empty space where general public information needs to be happening on this topic; citizens should be very concerned that no commitment is made anywhere until we are fully educated and are in a position to make an informed vote.
Paris town manager P. Tarr, also currently the chairman of the NPSW board, was wondering at the Paris selectboard meeting Monday, what the public would have to say.
Unfortunately, most folks might know something about solid waste management in general, but certainly far less about single stream recycling in particular.
Generally speaking, what we think of as garbage items would still have to be dealt with in their own way; but recyclable items would have a new way of being handled.
A general understanding of single stream might be, at a rudimentary level of explanation, that all recyclable items would be received into one huge receptacle, then shipped off to a huge sorting plant, sorted by machine, and then disposed of from there; vs. sorting glass from metals from paper, etc, as many of us do individually now, and then disposing of the results in various ways.
Some starter questions might be:
*If there is money to be made from this kind of solid waste management operation, where would it go?
*If, at the magical sorting center, things don't happen to get all sorted properly (there is mention of some things "falling through the cracks") what are the ecological ramifications, historically, with this kind of set up?
*What will happen to the set up we already have, the various components, the workers, the sites, etc?
*Is the Norway-Paris community doing such a poor job of sorting our solid waste that there is need to just put everything in a big bin and ship it off somewhere else to be sorted?
And, lest anyone think this is not about money, because a certain individual said plainly at a combined waste management meeting in spring 2010 that "There's a lot of money to be made in waste management...." let's be certain to double check:
*Who stands to profit?
*Is it only about money?
None of these questions is intended to infer that anything underhanded is afoot. But there is a huge empty space where general public information needs to be happening on this topic; citizens should be very concerned that no commitment is made anywhere until we are fully educated and are in a position to make an informed vote.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Items covered
Smaller group tonight. Nasty weather. 6 - 8 concerned citizens; five stalwart selectpersons; one town manager; one hard working town clerk; two newspaper reporters...
...and the welcome presence of NPCTV. Again, and still. For double checking facts or discussions, there is nothing like seeing and hearing things - again. In addition, for the not-faint-of-heart, any citizen at large who cannot easily get out to a meeting, but cares about how our town is being run, can see things in real time. Such citizens make phone calls, often use email, and more than one might think, have considerable networks. Good to remember...
The Sun Journal and the Advertiser Democrat will no doubt give more than adequate coverage to the actual business conducted in tonight's board meeting. TPR offers what the late radio commentator Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story."
As noted in the previous posting, certain timely items were not included formally in the agenda.
Items covered that weren't listed: (see previous posting)
*The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads. Action will most assuredly be addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard. In fact, Selectperson Smart found that the minutes of selectboard meeting 9-13-10, stating Selectman Herrick's motion to address the action taken, were not quite adequate. Transcript of the 9-13-10 meeting in hand, she requested that the additional words be added.
Below are the words from the minutes of the 13th, (A) , followed by the 2 sections of the actual motion, in red. (B)
In response to a request from two landowners to reconsider a vote taken in June 2010 to approve ATV usage for Parson's Road:
(A) A motion was made by Mr. Herrick to move the meeting scheduled for December 13, 2010 to October 25, 2010.
Selectperson Smart's expanded inclusion for the minutes, to be added and approved at the next meeting:
(B)Selectman Herrick: I make a motion that we postpone this issue that we originally voted on last meeting, and move it up to a date in October to discuss further action on this issue.
After that meeting, after that stake holder meeting, after that stake holder meeting is done and over with the town manager, then we, at one of our dated meetings for the month, will discuss the outcome of the results of that meeting. But October 25th, we will revisit, and hopefully that will make the decision whether we rescind our vote in June - or what actually will fly.
*6 month evaluation of the town manager.
Chairman Glover: "We must set a time and a place for... [editor's note: "for" more discussion than the executive session on September 8th evidently allowed, plus preparation for] the evaluation of the town manager. Then we have to set a date to meet with Phil and deliver the evaluation."
It would appear that this event will actually transpire. Sooner rather than later. Somewhere in October, maybe?
*The undesignated fund balance. Yes. What about this?
...and the welcome presence of NPCTV. Again, and still. For double checking facts or discussions, there is nothing like seeing and hearing things - again. In addition, for the not-faint-of-heart, any citizen at large who cannot easily get out to a meeting, but cares about how our town is being run, can see things in real time. Such citizens make phone calls, often use email, and more than one might think, have considerable networks. Good to remember...
The Sun Journal and the Advertiser Democrat will no doubt give more than adequate coverage to the actual business conducted in tonight's board meeting. TPR offers what the late radio commentator Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story."
As noted in the previous posting, certain timely items were not included formally in the agenda.
Items covered that weren't listed: (see previous posting)
*The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads. Action will most assuredly be addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard. In fact, Selectperson Smart found that the minutes of selectboard meeting 9-13-10, stating Selectman Herrick's motion to address the action taken, were not quite adequate. Transcript of the 9-13-10 meeting in hand, she requested that the additional words be added.
Below are the words from the minutes of the 13th, (A) , followed by the 2 sections of the actual motion, in red. (B)
In response to a request from two landowners to reconsider a vote taken in June 2010 to approve ATV usage for Parson's Road:
(A) A motion was made by Mr. Herrick to move the meeting scheduled for December 13, 2010 to October 25, 2010.
Selectperson Smart's expanded inclusion for the minutes, to be added and approved at the next meeting:
(B)Selectman Herrick: I make a motion that we postpone this issue that we originally voted on last meeting, and move it up to a date in October to discuss further action on this issue.
After that meeting, after that stake holder meeting, after that stake holder meeting is done and over with the town manager, then we, at one of our dated meetings for the month, will discuss the outcome of the results of that meeting. But October 25th, we will revisit, and hopefully that will make the decision whether we rescind our vote in June - or what actually will fly.
*6 month evaluation of the town manager.
Chairman Glover: "We must set a time and a place for... [editor's note: "for" more discussion than the executive session on September 8th evidently allowed, plus preparation for] the evaluation of the town manager. Then we have to set a date to meet with Phil and deliver the evaluation."
It would appear that this event will actually transpire. Sooner rather than later. Somewhere in October, maybe?
*The undesignated fund balance. Yes. What about this?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
By their omission
Monday 9-27-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office, 7 PM. Agenda here. Items of business for our town.
Some timely topics, however, do not appear to be formally included on the agenda... such as:
* Paris town manager P. Tarr and his adjoining role as president of the Norway Paris Solid Waste Board. Not to comment on the effect of Tarr's work on the NPSW.
But, to comment on the question of whether this role has taken him away from duties for which he is currently paid - by us - namely, the administrative duties for the Town of Paris. Have others in the office staff been left to carry out the duties he is supposed to cover? Do we know the answer to that? You sure?
* This undesignated fund balance that is evidently supposed to be paying for all the un-planned-for expenses in the town - mentioned by our town manager from time to time as the ultimate source needed to cover municipal needs here and there....
What is the balance, as a matter of fact? Who is monitoring that? Does everyone understand the standard protocol and recommended procedure for how the undesignated fund balance is intended to work? There are some of us who do....
* The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads who met Thursday 9-23-10. Hopefully the next steps will be outlined in this venue at some point. Those who attended that meeting, described quite accurately in the Sun Journal Friday 9-24-10, already know, but action has not yet been addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard.
*The 6 month evaluation of the town manager. No less than 2 selectboard meetings (8-23-10 and 8-09-10) and one special executive session (9-08-10) have been devoted to it. What's happening? Is there to be a 6 month evaluation or not? P. Tarr was hired in January 2010. We are only 3 months shy of January. For all the discussion and apparent concern, we are getting closer to a full year, here. There has not been a 6-month evaluation for any town manager recently. What's up? Or was up and isn't anymore? Or isn't going to be... etc....
Some citizens don't notice these things. Others do. And then they remind others....
Some timely topics, however, do not appear to be formally included on the agenda... such as:
* Paris town manager P. Tarr and his adjoining role as president of the Norway Paris Solid Waste Board. Not to comment on the effect of Tarr's work on the NPSW.
But, to comment on the question of whether this role has taken him away from duties for which he is currently paid - by us - namely, the administrative duties for the Town of Paris. Have others in the office staff been left to carry out the duties he is supposed to cover? Do we know the answer to that? You sure?
* This undesignated fund balance that is evidently supposed to be paying for all the un-planned-for expenses in the town - mentioned by our town manager from time to time as the ultimate source needed to cover municipal needs here and there....
What is the balance, as a matter of fact? Who is monitoring that? Does everyone understand the standard protocol and recommended procedure for how the undesignated fund balance is intended to work? There are some of us who do....
* The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads who met Thursday 9-23-10. Hopefully the next steps will be outlined in this venue at some point. Those who attended that meeting, described quite accurately in the Sun Journal Friday 9-24-10, already know, but action has not yet been addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard.
*The 6 month evaluation of the town manager. No less than 2 selectboard meetings (8-23-10 and 8-09-10) and one special executive session (9-08-10) have been devoted to it. What's happening? Is there to be a 6 month evaluation or not? P. Tarr was hired in January 2010. We are only 3 months shy of January. For all the discussion and apparent concern, we are getting closer to a full year, here. There has not been a 6-month evaluation for any town manager recently. What's up? Or was up and isn't anymore? Or isn't going to be... etc....
Some citizens don't notice these things. Others do. And then they remind others....
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Who will come?
Thursday September 23 at 5:30 PM at the Paris fire station there will be a meeting of ATV operators, and landowners who live on any roads involved in the recent decision handed down by the town giving ATV operators permission to use certain public roads as cross-over means to connect to off-road trails. (see previous TPR posting Same process for everybody, 9-15-1010.)
It is the understanding of TPR that Parsons Road, Elm Hill Road, Brett Hill Road are involved. It is also TPR's understanding that relevant parties were notified by the town about the meeting. The voting public at large, in the town of Paris, is welcome as well.
One hopes that will include at least some of Paris' selectboard members. Information gleaned at tomorrow's meeting should prove most informative, and would assist them in their efforts to respond effectively in their October 25 deliberations and public discussion (referred to above in TPR's previous posting.)
It is also to be hoped that, if the town manager is going to be the mediator/facilitator of this discussion, he has done his homework and is fully prepared.
No decision will be forthcoming at the end of this meeting; but there are very strong feelings on both sides of the question, not the least of which have been caused by the lack of a proper public discussion with all stakeholders long before decisions were made by the town and things worked themselves into a potentially explosive situation.
Word is that an elected official, or two, at the state level, have been invited. Someone, it would seem, feels that there might be a serious - or at least noteworthy - discussion Thursday at 5:30.
Come and see.
It is the understanding of TPR that Parsons Road, Elm Hill Road, Brett Hill Road are involved. It is also TPR's understanding that relevant parties were notified by the town about the meeting. The voting public at large, in the town of Paris, is welcome as well.
One hopes that will include at least some of Paris' selectboard members. Information gleaned at tomorrow's meeting should prove most informative, and would assist them in their efforts to respond effectively in their October 25 deliberations and public discussion (referred to above in TPR's previous posting.)
It is also to be hoped that, if the town manager is going to be the mediator/facilitator of this discussion, he has done his homework and is fully prepared.
No decision will be forthcoming at the end of this meeting; but there are very strong feelings on both sides of the question, not the least of which have been caused by the lack of a proper public discussion with all stakeholders long before decisions were made by the town and things worked themselves into a potentially explosive situation.
Word is that an elected official, or two, at the state level, have been invited. Someone, it would seem, feels that there might be a serious - or at least noteworthy - discussion Thursday at 5:30.
Come and see.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Same process for everybody
Monday's Paris selectboard meeting hosted well over 45 folks: reporters and cameraman; officials at the front table; a sizeable representation of ATV owners, club members as well as individuals; a smaller representation of landowners along the Parsons Road where the ATV route crosses between trails; and the 7-8 regulars who continue to exercise their general interest in municipal proceedings as Paris voters.
Agenda item #8, to consider a process for group - or individual - requests for access to public roads or property, was very timely.
After a lengthy discussion including fair opportunity for each side of the question, it seemed clear to uninvolved (albeit not uncaring) listeners in the audience that there had been no process at all, just information presented, several people doing homework, some more, or less, than others.
But without specific directions, a workable solution has less chance of emerging; expectations can not possibly be clear. Even if the old saying "You can't please everyone" keeps cropping up, at least if there was a clear directive that spoke to all parties concerned, there would be fewer surprises on all sides.
Consider: a speed limit of 35mph on Any Imaginary Road. Who hasn't traveled more than 35 mph on such a road when conditions seemed to merit? And who has had any success arguing with an officer of the law if stopped ? There are really no surprises when the rule is clear.
Otherwise, without a clear process, the citizens of this town - be they recreational groups, landowners, or elected officials trying to iron things out - are faced with re-inventing the wheel every time a new concern erupts, just like we have in the current road use issue.
Quoting the existing laws is not the answer. There seem to be other steps necessary, because there are unresolved issues here.
More homework, or perhaps more awareness all around, might have helped prevent the serious concerns and anger threatening to break loose. Maybe. But without a workable tool, there is too much open to interpretation, too much ambiguity. And the result is that no one is really protected - on any side.
So. There are evidently plans in the works for concerned parties to meet - imminently - with the town manager, to gather information that will be used in a selectboard discussion at the October 25 selectboard meeting, rather than the December 13 meeting as previously stated.
This seems to be a reasonable step toward a solution. Citizens on all sides deserve to have the hearing they should have had before any decision was officially made.
Note: there will need to be skillful and careful facilitation, by an individual both sides of the question can trust, in the sharing of comments. Although both sides need to have their interests well represented, packing the room with hundreds on one side and 15 on the other side will not make the solution more workable - it will simply appear as a threat, people will dig in their heels; and there will be no solution at all.
Only rampant anger. We've had that in this town before, and it does not work.
There has to be a process crafted that makes absolutely clear what is being asked and who is responsible, #1; a meeting of all stakeholders must be set up, #2; then, and only then, should the selectboard become involved to have their input and discussion, and take their action.
Agenda item #8, to consider a process for group - or individual - requests for access to public roads or property, was very timely.
After a lengthy discussion including fair opportunity for each side of the question, it seemed clear to uninvolved (albeit not uncaring) listeners in the audience that there had been no process at all, just information presented, several people doing homework, some more, or less, than others.
But without specific directions, a workable solution has less chance of emerging; expectations can not possibly be clear. Even if the old saying "You can't please everyone" keeps cropping up, at least if there was a clear directive that spoke to all parties concerned, there would be fewer surprises on all sides.
Consider: a speed limit of 35mph on Any Imaginary Road. Who hasn't traveled more than 35 mph on such a road when conditions seemed to merit? And who has had any success arguing with an officer of the law if stopped ? There are really no surprises when the rule is clear.
Otherwise, without a clear process, the citizens of this town - be they recreational groups, landowners, or elected officials trying to iron things out - are faced with re-inventing the wheel every time a new concern erupts, just like we have in the current road use issue.
Quoting the existing laws is not the answer. There seem to be other steps necessary, because there are unresolved issues here.
More homework, or perhaps more awareness all around, might have helped prevent the serious concerns and anger threatening to break loose. Maybe. But without a workable tool, there is too much open to interpretation, too much ambiguity. And the result is that no one is really protected - on any side.
So. There are evidently plans in the works for concerned parties to meet - imminently - with the town manager, to gather information that will be used in a selectboard discussion at the October 25 selectboard meeting, rather than the December 13 meeting as previously stated.
This seems to be a reasonable step toward a solution. Citizens on all sides deserve to have the hearing they should have had before any decision was officially made.
Note: there will need to be skillful and careful facilitation, by an individual both sides of the question can trust, in the sharing of comments. Although both sides need to have their interests well represented, packing the room with hundreds on one side and 15 on the other side will not make the solution more workable - it will simply appear as a threat, people will dig in their heels; and there will be no solution at all.
Only rampant anger. We've had that in this town before, and it does not work.
There has to be a process crafted that makes absolutely clear what is being asked and who is responsible, #1; a meeting of all stakeholders must be set up, #2; then, and only then, should the selectboard become involved to have their input and discussion, and take their action.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The business of the town...
...continues to happen and decisions get made that affect us all. Monday 9-13-10 Paris selectboard meets at 7 pm, town office. Agenda posted here.
Consider item #7: a request to reconsider a vote taken on 6/28/10 re. public road usage by ATVs. [editor's note: 6/28/10, item #15 was Discussion and action on ATV club road usage. A verbal request was presented by the X-tra Mile ATV club, along with a copy of their letter sent to land owners. A map outlining the plans involved was presented as well. Full information could be found on the NPC-TV recording, for that date.]
[editor's note: 8/23/10: The same issue was addressed again, this time by some of the land owners who were not pleased with the activity that resulted from the decision on 6-28. This 9-13 meeting will be the 3rd time the issue of ATV's using certain public roads in Paris has been addressed.]
When questions are brought to the selectboard, citizens are looking for a public decision that will be in keeping with the rules that are set up to govern the town. Sometimes the processes we need are not as clear as they should be - sometimes they are even non-existent. Sometimes laws and ordinances involved don't cover the issues as adequately as they need to, and ambiguity allows for misunderstandings.
Misunderstandings grow and fester, and need to be addressed immediately and fairly. One would trust that our public officials will listen with unbiased ears, and allow for the possibility that additional action might need to be considered.
This town belongs to all of us - officials, landowners, recreational groups - taxpayers all.
Consider item #7: a request to reconsider a vote taken on 6/28/10 re. public road usage by ATVs. [editor's note: 6/28/10, item #15 was Discussion and action on ATV club road usage. A verbal request was presented by the X-tra Mile ATV club, along with a copy of their letter sent to land owners. A map outlining the plans involved was presented as well. Full information could be found on the NPC-TV recording, for that date.]
[editor's note: 8/23/10: The same issue was addressed again, this time by some of the land owners who were not pleased with the activity that resulted from the decision on 6-28. This 9-13 meeting will be the 3rd time the issue of ATV's using certain public roads in Paris has been addressed.]
When questions are brought to the selectboard, citizens are looking for a public decision that will be in keeping with the rules that are set up to govern the town. Sometimes the processes we need are not as clear as they should be - sometimes they are even non-existent. Sometimes laws and ordinances involved don't cover the issues as adequately as they need to, and ambiguity allows for misunderstandings.
Misunderstandings grow and fester, and need to be addressed immediately and fairly. One would trust that our public officials will listen with unbiased ears, and allow for the possibility that additional action might need to be considered.
This town belongs to all of us - officials, landowners, recreational groups - taxpayers all.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
There's an agenda?
A few excerpts of dialogue here from the first 12 minutes or so of the special meeting of Paris selectboard, Wednesday evening, 9-08-10.
Actually, from a few minutes before the meeting started, because a citizen in the audience asked if she could ask a question right then, knowing there were no citizen comments after the meeting started. Permission was granted.
[editor's note: The following are excerpts, taken, in order, from an audio tape recording of the public session of the meeting. The entire transcript of that recording is not included here in the defense of public sanity.]
Citizen: "What is this meeting tonight about?" [editor's note: as published in the agenda last TPR posting, the agenda item read; "Enter into Executive Session - ...to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager." ]
Chairman Glover: "...discuss the process, or how to do an evaluation, or discuss the evaluation, or...do an evaluation...."
Selectwoman Smart: "I thought we were, tonight, going to talk about the process we were going to use -because, remember, that's why we... "
Chair. G.: "Well, that's what...the agenda item says..."
Chair G.: ..."But I agree if we're just talking about a process, it does not require an executive session."
Citizen: "...and how does that... "
Chair G.:"But, I don't believe that this group is going to not say something on a personal basis to... hmm...the person that we're evaluating. And if we're discussing the person to be evaluated, then that needs to be in executive session."
Sel. S.: "Well, I thought we were not discussing the person; we were only setting up a process designing, with..."
Chair G: "..I had a process set up the first meeting this was brought up. But, then, we kept getting questions, after questions, after questions, and I finally said, well, let's have a special meeting to decide how we're going to do it."
Selectman Kurtz: "I made the offhand comment a few meetings ago that maybe...if we had a meeting among ourselves before we met with the town manager...instead of walking into the room for the very first time with the other select people, not having said anything to them, not having any idea how [names each board member] feels; I just come and just talk and everybody says what he or she feels and we get a hodgepodge."
Chair G.: [talking over Sel. Kurtz's comments above, who then talked over Ch. Glover, both then talking simultaneously] " That's why the forms were provided to everybody - because it's a formal process of just sending out a questionnaire. It's not as unstructured as you intimate."
Citizen: "But you don't seem to be on the same page as to what's going to happen this evening."
Discussion continued. Meeting still not started. Confusion was mounting ....
Citizen: "Ted...are you looking to change the evaluation form as it sits?"
Sel. K.: "No."
Citizen: "Then it isn't about the process - it's about discussing."
Sel K: "My reason is to have a discussion in executive session about the town manager. I could care less about the form."
The meeting did officially open, with pledge of allegiance and all, and then the discussion continued, because, after all there was... an agenda...
Process? No process? evaluation? comments that need to NOT be shared with the public? Well, an executive session had been warranted, as two board members pointed out, and somehow there had to be a way to get this thing off the ground.
Sel. K.:"I move we enter executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405 (6)(A) to discuss to - all ramifications of the evaluation of the town manager."
Motion was seconded; discussion; Selectman Herrick and Selectwoman Smart tried to get information straight and Chairman Glover tried to make it clear he just didn't know what was going to happen.
Chair. G.: "I honestly can't tell you what the agenda really is going to turn out to be - that's half the problem."
Time was passing. Chairman Glover finally referenced the motion - twice:
"...we do have a motion and a second on the floor to enter executive session."
Then,
"I will call for the vote: All those in favor of going into executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405(6)(A), raise your right hand."
No restating Selectman Kurtz's actual motion; no restatement of the original agenda item that started this whole business. Just plain old "executive session."
The vote to go into executive session passed 4-1, selectwoman Smart voting against.
So they met. And they discussed the proverbial "Whatever.. "
Three questions:
*What happened here?
*Why didn't the agenda simply state that the topic to justify going into an executive session was to prepare for the evaluation of the town manager?
and.....
*What's up with the town manager anyway?
Actually, from a few minutes before the meeting started, because a citizen in the audience asked if she could ask a question right then, knowing there were no citizen comments after the meeting started. Permission was granted.
[editor's note: The following are excerpts, taken, in order, from an audio tape recording of the public session of the meeting. The entire transcript of that recording is not included here in the defense of public sanity.]
Citizen: "What is this meeting tonight about?" [editor's note: as published in the agenda last TPR posting, the agenda item read; "Enter into Executive Session - ...to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager." ]
Chairman Glover: "...discuss the process, or how to do an evaluation, or discuss the evaluation, or...do an evaluation...."
Selectwoman Smart: "I thought we were, tonight, going to talk about the process we were going to use -because, remember, that's why we... "
Chair. G.: "Well, that's what...the agenda item says..."
Chair G.: ..."But I agree if we're just talking about a process, it does not require an executive session."
Citizen: "...and how does that... "
Chair G.:"But, I don't believe that this group is going to not say something on a personal basis to... hmm...the person that we're evaluating. And if we're discussing the person to be evaluated, then that needs to be in executive session."
Sel. S.: "Well, I thought we were not discussing the person; we were only setting up a process designing, with..."
Chair G: "..I had a process set up the first meeting this was brought up. But, then, we kept getting questions, after questions, after questions, and I finally said, well, let's have a special meeting to decide how we're going to do it."
Selectman Kurtz: "I made the offhand comment a few meetings ago that maybe...if we had a meeting among ourselves before we met with the town manager...instead of walking into the room for the very first time with the other select people, not having said anything to them, not having any idea how [names each board member] feels; I just come and just talk and everybody says what he or she feels and we get a hodgepodge."
Chair G.: [talking over Sel. Kurtz's comments above, who then talked over Ch. Glover, both then talking simultaneously] " That's why the forms were provided to everybody - because it's a formal process of just sending out a questionnaire. It's not as unstructured as you intimate."
Citizen: "But you don't seem to be on the same page as to what's going to happen this evening."
Discussion continued. Meeting still not started. Confusion was mounting ....
Citizen: "Ted...are you looking to change the evaluation form as it sits?"
Sel. K.: "No."
Citizen: "Then it isn't about the process - it's about discussing."
Sel K: "My reason is to have a discussion in executive session about the town manager. I could care less about the form."
The meeting did officially open, with pledge of allegiance and all, and then the discussion continued, because, after all there was... an agenda...
Process? No process? evaluation? comments that need to NOT be shared with the public? Well, an executive session had been warranted, as two board members pointed out, and somehow there had to be a way to get this thing off the ground.
Sel. K.:"I move we enter executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405 (6)(A) to discuss to - all ramifications of the evaluation of the town manager."
Motion was seconded; discussion; Selectman Herrick and Selectwoman Smart tried to get information straight and Chairman Glover tried to make it clear he just didn't know what was going to happen.
Chair. G.: "I honestly can't tell you what the agenda really is going to turn out to be - that's half the problem."
Time was passing. Chairman Glover finally referenced the motion - twice:
"...we do have a motion and a second on the floor to enter executive session."
Then,
"I will call for the vote: All those in favor of going into executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405(6)(A), raise your right hand."
No restating Selectman Kurtz's actual motion; no restatement of the original agenda item that started this whole business. Just plain old "executive session."
The vote to go into executive session passed 4-1, selectwoman Smart voting against.
So they met. And they discussed the proverbial "Whatever.. "
Three questions:
*What happened here?
*Why didn't the agenda simply state that the topic to justify going into an executive session was to prepare for the evaluation of the town manager?
and.....
*What's up with the town manager anyway?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
An agenda...
...and a few questions.
At their special meeting Wednesday, 9-08-10, at 6:30 pm, Paris Selectboard will enter into executive session "to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager."
(see agenda)
Questions come to mind:
*"the process on how to do..." Most certainly a procedure would be necessary for an evaluation. Procedures, as well as policies, are currently being updated, even created, on more than one front in the municipal works of the town of Paris. Procedures are the nuts and bolts of the movement of those municipal works, and will be most helpful if they are efficient.
But why would that need an executive session? What's sensitive in this?
*The agenda for the selectboard meeting of Monday 8-09-10 included item #22:"Enter into executive session ...to discuss midterm year evaluation of the Town Manager" Evaluation forms were distributed to individual board members to note thoughts and observations of the town manager in preparation for a group evaluation, but no action was taken on the item at that time.
Once again, agenda of meeting Monday 8-23-10, item #16: "Discussion and action on the process of evaluation of the town manager." When one board member noted not being brought into the loop of why item 16 vs an executive session, Chairman Glover said he had made an executive decision on that. It was not clear if any others at the front table knew ahead of time about the decision.
Even so, instead of discussion and action on the process, a meeting for September 8th was set to discuss the process. No mention at that time of when an actual evaluation might take place.
So, the wording on this topic of evaluation, including a process for it, has gone from
"discuss midterm evaluation," to "discussion...on the process of evaluation," to "discuss the process on how to do an evaluation."
Why is this discussion so hard to get started? Why is there a discussion at all? Why an evaluation now, if there has not been precedent for midterm evaluations for town managers?
And, why is this process planning part sensitive enough to need an executive session?
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Title 1, §405, 6A(1) states that "An executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated." [emphasis added]
This is the law. But if, somehow, there is permission within the law to meet and figure out what to do as a group before the group officially evaluates, then why doesn't the agenda item for Wednesday's executive session read:
"Discussion in preparation for an evaluation of the town manager?"
At their special meeting Wednesday, 9-08-10, at 6:30 pm, Paris Selectboard will enter into executive session "to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager."
(see agenda)
Questions come to mind:
*"the process on how to do..." Most certainly a procedure would be necessary for an evaluation. Procedures, as well as policies, are currently being updated, even created, on more than one front in the municipal works of the town of Paris. Procedures are the nuts and bolts of the movement of those municipal works, and will be most helpful if they are efficient.
But why would that need an executive session? What's sensitive in this?
*The agenda for the selectboard meeting of Monday 8-09-10 included item #22:"Enter into executive session ...to discuss midterm year evaluation of the Town Manager" Evaluation forms were distributed to individual board members to note thoughts and observations of the town manager in preparation for a group evaluation, but no action was taken on the item at that time.
Once again, agenda of meeting Monday 8-23-10, item #16: "Discussion and action on the process of evaluation of the town manager." When one board member noted not being brought into the loop of why item 16 vs an executive session, Chairman Glover said he had made an executive decision on that. It was not clear if any others at the front table knew ahead of time about the decision.
Even so, instead of discussion and action on the process, a meeting for September 8th was set to discuss the process. No mention at that time of when an actual evaluation might take place.
So, the wording on this topic of evaluation, including a process for it, has gone from
"discuss midterm evaluation," to "discussion...on the process of evaluation," to "discuss the process on how to do an evaluation."
Why is this discussion so hard to get started? Why is there a discussion at all? Why an evaluation now, if there has not been precedent for midterm evaluations for town managers?
And, why is this process planning part sensitive enough to need an executive session?
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Title 1, §405, 6A(1) states that "An executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated." [emphasis added]
This is the law. But if, somehow, there is permission within the law to meet and figure out what to do as a group before the group officially evaluates, then why doesn't the agenda item for Wednesday's executive session read:
"Discussion in preparation for an evaluation of the town manager?"
Seems unnecessary to go to so much bother if there's nothing to hide....
Monday, September 6, 2010
This is where we are
Two weeks from the last Paris selectboard meeting, one week to go: the second and forth Mondays.
No written news does not necessarily mean things are nowhere.... It simply indicates that unless a public information situation arises there will not be fabricated information presented.
This is where we are:
*This Wednesday Sept. 8 the Paris Selectboard will meet in executive session to discuss "a process for evaluating the town manager.” This semi annual review has not been a pattern in recent years. Perhaps this one is in deference to the town of Paris' personnel policy that requires every newly hired employee serve a 6 month probationary period?
But can such an evaluation be a bad thing? Expectations can be presented on both sides of the equation.
Perhaps there will be a discussion of sick leave , and how and when it kicks in?
One assumes another executive session to actually evaluate the town manager will follow in the near future.
And one hopes that the general voting public would be notified if there was any problem, any discrepancy, any irregularity that they should be informed of. Because, otherwise, one tiny little citizens' watch group would have their hands full, wouldn't they?
*ATV's and any citizen concerns thereof are at a standstill for the moment.
*Next Monday 9-13-10 Paris Selectboard will have their regular meeting. The public is welcome.
*Tuesday 9-14-10 the Paris Planning Board will hold a public hearing at the town office for the Grace Baptist Church 5 day per week Christian day school. The school is on Paris Hill Road, part way up the hill beyond Mink Farm Road. This will be the second (or is it third) in the series. The Paris Planning board is working at best capacity with the ordinances at hand.
*There is a rate increase in the future for Paris Utility District. A hefty one. Last word was that the next meeting would be September 20.
*Norway Paris Solid Waste - a half-million dollar budget of tax payer dollars...a new board and new input. But an open question as to where it all will lead....
This is our town. We all have to keep watch.
No written news does not necessarily mean things are nowhere.... It simply indicates that unless a public information situation arises there will not be fabricated information presented.
This is where we are:
*This Wednesday Sept. 8 the Paris Selectboard will meet in executive session to discuss "a process for evaluating the town manager.” This semi annual review has not been a pattern in recent years. Perhaps this one is in deference to the town of Paris' personnel policy that requires every newly hired employee serve a 6 month probationary period?
But can such an evaluation be a bad thing? Expectations can be presented on both sides of the equation.
Perhaps there will be a discussion of sick leave , and how and when it kicks in?
One assumes another executive session to actually evaluate the town manager will follow in the near future.
And one hopes that the general voting public would be notified if there was any problem, any discrepancy, any irregularity that they should be informed of. Because, otherwise, one tiny little citizens' watch group would have their hands full, wouldn't they?
*ATV's and any citizen concerns thereof are at a standstill for the moment.
*Next Monday 9-13-10 Paris Selectboard will have their regular meeting. The public is welcome.
*Tuesday 9-14-10 the Paris Planning Board will hold a public hearing at the town office for the Grace Baptist Church 5 day per week Christian day school. The school is on Paris Hill Road, part way up the hill beyond Mink Farm Road. This will be the second (or is it third) in the series. The Paris Planning board is working at best capacity with the ordinances at hand.
*There is a rate increase in the future for Paris Utility District. A hefty one. Last word was that the next meeting would be September 20.
*Norway Paris Solid Waste - a half-million dollar budget of tax payer dollars...a new board and new input. But an open question as to where it all will lead....
This is our town. We all have to keep watch.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Connecting with people
What you may not read about in the newspapers about the meeting tonight can be summed up under the umbrella of the need for connecting with people.
During Citizen's Comments there was a request, echoed by more than one person, to consider some enhanced publicizing for public hearings - for all town boards or committees, especially on topics that might prove controversial.
It is less likely that voters are apathetic about town matters or that they refuse to come out to public hearings; perhaps more likely, they simply may not know about a hearing, or plan, or decision.
If attendance is not high (or worse, nonexistent...) at forums where the public is actually allowed to speak, even though a publicizing plan for the forum is in place, then it cannot hurt to consider beefing up the publicizing.
The theme of communication with the public seemed destined to continue. Of the approximately 30 people in the audience tonight, a good 25 or so came to support - or respond to - a concern by several land owners on Parsons Road about noise from ATV's now regularly using part of the road as a result of an earlier ok by the selectboard. They felt that decisions had been made on top of them - that they had no say in it.
We as citizens don't like to feel we have been kept in the dark, or that something or someone might be infringing on our space - or that we don't matter.
But, tonight, several good things emerged as a special section of the meeting devoted to this topic unfolded.
It became obvious, as the discussion progressed, that one audience member representing one particular side of the issue, plus at least one board member, perhaps two, and the town manager had already talked and prearranged a little here and there.
Nevertheless, there was:
* an attempt to allow actual citizen input, even if a couple of people were stopped mid-sentence, and a couple more aggressive speakers just kept going and were not stopped;
*a tiny beginning of dialogue, not only between audience members with opposing views, but between some board members and audience speakers;
*a real move, by two board members, to connect with the people speaking, to the point where each of the two said, at different points during the session, in their own individual ways, that they were genuinely sorry about the situation.
*an interest by the Oxford ATV club, also the X-tra Mile ATV club, to try to work with the land owners; and the landowners, though standing their ground, accepted a 3 month period of adjustment, agreeing to a meeting early in December for a conclusion, and in the interim, a meeting of landowners and ATV club reps.
There are still a few facts that need to be double-checked about what was actually said at the original meeting and voted on.
There is more facilitating needed between those who make the rules and those who are affected by them. There was too much quoting of law.... not a useful tool in discussions like tonight's....
...and a little arrogance and patronizing that needs tempering....
But this town, any town, is about people - laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances notwithstanding. Making this town work is about valuing the people in the town. All of them, not just the convenient or the loud or the intimidating. The laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances - and all the rest - will fit in as the people allow them to.
During Citizen's Comments there was a request, echoed by more than one person, to consider some enhanced publicizing for public hearings - for all town boards or committees, especially on topics that might prove controversial.
It is less likely that voters are apathetic about town matters or that they refuse to come out to public hearings; perhaps more likely, they simply may not know about a hearing, or plan, or decision.
If attendance is not high (or worse, nonexistent...) at forums where the public is actually allowed to speak, even though a publicizing plan for the forum is in place, then it cannot hurt to consider beefing up the publicizing.
The theme of communication with the public seemed destined to continue. Of the approximately 30 people in the audience tonight, a good 25 or so came to support - or respond to - a concern by several land owners on Parsons Road about noise from ATV's now regularly using part of the road as a result of an earlier ok by the selectboard. They felt that decisions had been made on top of them - that they had no say in it.
We as citizens don't like to feel we have been kept in the dark, or that something or someone might be infringing on our space - or that we don't matter.
But, tonight, several good things emerged as a special section of the meeting devoted to this topic unfolded.
It became obvious, as the discussion progressed, that one audience member representing one particular side of the issue, plus at least one board member, perhaps two, and the town manager had already talked and prearranged a little here and there.
Nevertheless, there was:
* an attempt to allow actual citizen input, even if a couple of people were stopped mid-sentence, and a couple more aggressive speakers just kept going and were not stopped;
*a tiny beginning of dialogue, not only between audience members with opposing views, but between some board members and audience speakers;
*a real move, by two board members, to connect with the people speaking, to the point where each of the two said, at different points during the session, in their own individual ways, that they were genuinely sorry about the situation.
*an interest by the Oxford ATV club, also the X-tra Mile ATV club, to try to work with the land owners; and the landowners, though standing their ground, accepted a 3 month period of adjustment, agreeing to a meeting early in December for a conclusion, and in the interim, a meeting of landowners and ATV club reps.
There are still a few facts that need to be double-checked about what was actually said at the original meeting and voted on.
There is more facilitating needed between those who make the rules and those who are affected by them. There was too much quoting of law.... not a useful tool in discussions like tonight's....
...and a little arrogance and patronizing that needs tempering....
But this town, any town, is about people - laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances notwithstanding. Making this town work is about valuing the people in the town. All of them, not just the convenient or the loud or the intimidating. The laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances - and all the rest - will fit in as the people allow them to.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Discussion and action
Monday August 23 at 7 PM Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office. Agenda here.
Items of interest:
*No mention of an executive session. # 16 refers to "the process of evaluation of the town manager."
*Category for "Selectmen concerns/requests" continues to be at or near the end of the agenda. Since meetings have run long, many attendees have already left. Some board member comments have been relevant to pertinent issues - one or two even provoking a conversation by tired board members at a very late hour - and would have been of interest to voters.
If the selectboard is not required to put their concerns before the public as items specifically listed on the agenda, perhaps the category might be moved up just after citizen comments? If the category is important enough to include, why not have it heard?
Or leave it off; and have selectboard concerns included as regular agenda items.
*Always a point of interest that important issues - perhaps controversial items - requiring discussion, like # 16, are pushed way to the end. Fewer citizens stay through to the end of these longer meetings.
There will always be a certain few who stay, however. No matter how late. This town belongs to all of us, and it's better to know more, rather than less, about what goes on inside our municipal machine.... and about the people running it.
Items of interest:
*No mention of an executive session. # 16 refers to "the process of evaluation of the town manager."
*Category for "Selectmen concerns/requests" continues to be at or near the end of the agenda. Since meetings have run long, many attendees have already left. Some board member comments have been relevant to pertinent issues - one or two even provoking a conversation by tired board members at a very late hour - and would have been of interest to voters.
If the selectboard is not required to put their concerns before the public as items specifically listed on the agenda, perhaps the category might be moved up just after citizen comments? If the category is important enough to include, why not have it heard?
Or leave it off; and have selectboard concerns included as regular agenda items.
*Always a point of interest that important issues - perhaps controversial items - requiring discussion, like # 16, are pushed way to the end. Fewer citizens stay through to the end of these longer meetings.
There will always be a certain few who stay, however. No matter how late. This town belongs to all of us, and it's better to know more, rather than less, about what goes on inside our municipal machine.... and about the people running it.
Monday, August 16, 2010
What public?
Public information.
In the context of a board discussion about an upcoming 6-month evaluation of the town manager, the previous posting referred to laws that facilitate the public's access to information that is about us, or is relevant to us, but that is not always available to us as citizens and taxpayers.
At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966, provides guidelines and directions for federal agencies to maintain records, and make them available to the public under certain circumstances.
Also at the federal level, in 1974, the Privacy Acts Amendments were to allow individual citizens to see records about themselves from federal investigative agencies, e.g., FBI, US Customs & Border Protection, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, passed in 1975, covers access to both public proceedings and public records. The law is often called the "Right-to-Know Law." It indicates that public proceedings exist to aid in conducting the public's business; that, in public proceedings (e.g., a town's selectboard or council meeting), actions are to be taken openly; that records are to be open to inspection; and that deliberations are to be conducted, for the most part, openly.
[editor's note: TPR refers readers to Findlaw.com as well as Wikipedia.org for more information on the 3 laws referred to here.]
These laws exist to protect the right of individuals to have access to information that can affect their lives. There are things that people need to know and understand directly. One of the costs of having someone else tell us what we "need to know" is that we become subject to someone else's agenda.
Concerning the FOAA, there are exceptions to "conducted openly," and they come in section 405, Executive Sessions. There are certain categories of discussion that are considered sensitive and are allowed to be held away from the public. The discussions are circumscribed however, to minimize keeping things secret from the public.
For example, discussions of sensitive personnel matters that could damage a person's reputation could be handled in executive session; but, any kind of action following such discussions can only be handled in open session.
At the 8-09-10 selectboard meeting there was mention of an evaluation form to be filled out by each board member in preparation for this evaluation of the town manager. The question was asked: can information placed on each individual form be shared with the other board members ahead of time? In other words, to be sure everyone is "on the same page," can there be a private discussion among board members before the conversation with the town manager?
It might well be that, when a group of people is evaluating one person, there is a need to have a private, fact gathering discussion outside the presence of the person to be evaluated. To make that logistically possible, a meeting without the manager and the public may have to take place.
Red flag:
* An executive session announced to discuss the manager's contract, and an immediate demand for another executive session to prepare for it.
There may well be a world of difference in the actual evaluation in this upcoming session vs the "evaluation" S. Jackson received 6-22-09. But a week ago, 8-09-10, in that room, more than one person squirmed.
Think about this: how would we know if there was something going on with an employee hired by officials we have elected? How can we be certain we are being told the whole story? If all discussion occurs in executive session, and we see only the results, how are we going to learn the whole truth? How do we know, and how do we learn, to trust?
There is a long way to go before there are enough trusting citizens in the town of Paris who are going to swallow explanations given by any board member just quoting laws - or before board members receive an automatic benefit of the doubt on important issues.
Trust is earned by actions, not words alone. And it is in short supply, if board members look around at - and listen to - many of the people who put them in office.
It is not a successful ploy to quote laws ad nauseam.
A minority of board members listen for the question behind the question - not just the part that can be used for pontificating or bullying.
Others need to watch and learn.
In the context of a board discussion about an upcoming 6-month evaluation of the town manager, the previous posting referred to laws that facilitate the public's access to information that is about us, or is relevant to us, but that is not always available to us as citizens and taxpayers.
At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966, provides guidelines and directions for federal agencies to maintain records, and make them available to the public under certain circumstances.
Also at the federal level, in 1974, the Privacy Acts Amendments were to allow individual citizens to see records about themselves from federal investigative agencies, e.g., FBI, US Customs & Border Protection, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, passed in 1975, covers access to both public proceedings and public records. The law is often called the "Right-to-Know Law." It indicates that public proceedings exist to aid in conducting the public's business; that, in public proceedings (e.g., a town's selectboard or council meeting), actions are to be taken openly; that records are to be open to inspection; and that deliberations are to be conducted, for the most part, openly.
[editor's note: TPR refers readers to Findlaw.com as well as Wikipedia.org for more information on the 3 laws referred to here.]
These laws exist to protect the right of individuals to have access to information that can affect their lives. There are things that people need to know and understand directly. One of the costs of having someone else tell us what we "need to know" is that we become subject to someone else's agenda.
Concerning the FOAA, there are exceptions to "conducted openly," and they come in section 405, Executive Sessions. There are certain categories of discussion that are considered sensitive and are allowed to be held away from the public. The discussions are circumscribed however, to minimize keeping things secret from the public.
For example, discussions of sensitive personnel matters that could damage a person's reputation could be handled in executive session; but, any kind of action following such discussions can only be handled in open session.
At the 8-09-10 selectboard meeting there was mention of an evaluation form to be filled out by each board member in preparation for this evaluation of the town manager. The question was asked: can information placed on each individual form be shared with the other board members ahead of time? In other words, to be sure everyone is "on the same page," can there be a private discussion among board members before the conversation with the town manager?
It might well be that, when a group of people is evaluating one person, there is a need to have a private, fact gathering discussion outside the presence of the person to be evaluated. To make that logistically possible, a meeting without the manager and the public may have to take place.
Red flag:
* An executive session announced to discuss the manager's contract, and an immediate demand for another executive session to prepare for it.
There may well be a world of difference in the actual evaluation in this upcoming session vs the "evaluation" S. Jackson received 6-22-09. But a week ago, 8-09-10, in that room, more than one person squirmed.
Think about this: how would we know if there was something going on with an employee hired by officials we have elected? How can we be certain we are being told the whole story? If all discussion occurs in executive session, and we see only the results, how are we going to learn the whole truth? How do we know, and how do we learn, to trust?
There is a long way to go before there are enough trusting citizens in the town of Paris who are going to swallow explanations given by any board member just quoting laws - or before board members receive an automatic benefit of the doubt on important issues.
Trust is earned by actions, not words alone. And it is in short supply, if board members look around at - and listen to - many of the people who put them in office.
It is not a successful ploy to quote laws ad nauseam.
A minority of board members listen for the question behind the question - not just the part that can be used for pontificating or bullying.
Others need to watch and learn.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Business, taxes, and public information
Regular stuff of municipal life.
Paris selectboard dealt with regular business last night: authorizing payroll, paying bills, filling vacancies on town committees. All of this information is on record and can be examined if any citizen is interested. Most aren't interested because the information is pretty mundane, complex, and there is an awful lot of it.
Taxes. Always there, a larger burden or a smaller one.... Mil rate, overlay, clear understandings of implications and explanations...
...TPR might take a look at those.
As for public information: now there's an issue. It is an interesting point that the media becomes the most vocal operative on that issue - perhaps because information is their bread and butter. It has to be said that sometimes the public media has been a sad source of public betrayal.
However, the fact remains that the issue - of information about and pertinent to the public being made available to the public - is so critical that laws have been crafted at both the state and federal level as vehicles for the public to have access to information that has in the past been hidden - and could easily still be.
The US Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, U.S.C.,§552) passed in 1974, and Maine's Freedom of Access Act (Title 1, M.R.S.A., §401,et.seq.) passed in 1975, are operative pieces of legislation. Although there are times when it really is necessary to protect a sensitive situation from premature release of information, there are countless attempts to manipulate and block information by blanket phrases like "national security," "privileged information," "need to know," and more.
Or
the suggestion that was thrown about at last night's meeting by one selectman, in reference to an employee evaluation coming up - having an executive session [editor's note: secret] to be sure each selectperson is in accord before meeting with the employee.
Does this remind Paris voters of a situation in this town 6-22-09? .
TPR will visit this topic in more detail.
Paris selectboard dealt with regular business last night: authorizing payroll, paying bills, filling vacancies on town committees. All of this information is on record and can be examined if any citizen is interested. Most aren't interested because the information is pretty mundane, complex, and there is an awful lot of it.
Taxes. Always there, a larger burden or a smaller one.... Mil rate, overlay, clear understandings of implications and explanations...
...TPR might take a look at those.
As for public information: now there's an issue. It is an interesting point that the media becomes the most vocal operative on that issue - perhaps because information is their bread and butter. It has to be said that sometimes the public media has been a sad source of public betrayal.
However, the fact remains that the issue - of information about and pertinent to the public being made available to the public - is so critical that laws have been crafted at both the state and federal level as vehicles for the public to have access to information that has in the past been hidden - and could easily still be.
The US Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, U.S.C.,§552) passed in 1974, and Maine's Freedom of Access Act (Title 1, M.R.S.A., §401,et.seq.) passed in 1975, are operative pieces of legislation. Although there are times when it really is necessary to protect a sensitive situation from premature release of information, there are countless attempts to manipulate and block information by blanket phrases like "national security," "privileged information," "need to know," and more.
Or
the suggestion that was thrown about at last night's meeting by one selectman, in reference to an employee evaluation coming up - having an executive session [editor's note: secret] to be sure each selectperson is in accord before meeting with the employee.
Does this remind Paris voters of a situation in this town 6-22-09? .
TPR will visit this topic in more detail.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
At the 2-week mark
So. Did the special town meeting on July 26th accomplish what it set out to do? About 70 Paris voters made the time to come to the Paris Fire Station in the middle of summer to do their part. Not to mention the town office staff who repeatedly have been pressed into extra service in recent weeks.
There were informed citizens who spoke out and asked pertinent questions. This is what should happen; and it did. The meeting moved according to protocol, and rudeness did not slow things down as it did at the annual town meeting in June. Bravo, Moderator Vern Maxfield.
The 4 items on the agenda were not block busters: the medical marijuana issue has never been fully discussed in public, despite the public hearing opportunity that felt like it was slipped in one day just before a selectboard meeting. The decision to go with a moratorium has only postponed any real decision making.
The payment to the former town manager did not need to be on the warrant at all - in the form that it appeared - to be voted on by anybody [editor's note: the only thing the selectboard needed from the public was the ok to release the funds from one budget source or another]; though there was a palpable force in the room when the unanimous "yes" vote was taken, lest the selectboard lose heart and default on their long-time-in-coming decision.
The Paris fire department. How can we not be supportive...how can we not think that Chief Frost has the best interest of this town in his thinking...how can we not bite the bullet and cough up the funds necessary? It would seem that some people think there is some other way to protect us and our homes...? Perhaps they will be more forthcoming in the Monday night meeting.... So the decision to go with Chief Frost's request - supported by some on the selectboard - to accept a portion of the fire fighters as regularly paid employees - still faces some challenges.
TPR feels that each individual voter must make his or her own decision on this and all matters. It would seem obvious who cares about this town, and who has an individual perspective with a personal spotlight attached.
And then there is the decision on when an elected selectboard official takes office. Just get on with it. Pick a date - stick with it, move on. The lawsuit is done; there is no need to fiddle around any more. The voters attending did just that - they voted, and showed every intention of moving on.
There followed the regular selectboard meeting: selections for committees; arguments for why this or that should happen or not.
And now we are at the 2-week mark in the month: where the selectboard meets again, giving the public a window on who they are, how they work, and what is really at stake in how our town is run....on our dollar.
Monday, August 9th, Paris town office, selectboard meets at 7 pm. Agenda here. Come if you can. Decisions are made that we pay for - one way or another.
There were informed citizens who spoke out and asked pertinent questions. This is what should happen; and it did. The meeting moved according to protocol, and rudeness did not slow things down as it did at the annual town meeting in June. Bravo, Moderator Vern Maxfield.
The 4 items on the agenda were not block busters: the medical marijuana issue has never been fully discussed in public, despite the public hearing opportunity that felt like it was slipped in one day just before a selectboard meeting. The decision to go with a moratorium has only postponed any real decision making.
The payment to the former town manager did not need to be on the warrant at all - in the form that it appeared - to be voted on by anybody [editor's note: the only thing the selectboard needed from the public was the ok to release the funds from one budget source or another]; though there was a palpable force in the room when the unanimous "yes" vote was taken, lest the selectboard lose heart and default on their long-time-in-coming decision.
The Paris fire department. How can we not be supportive...how can we not think that Chief Frost has the best interest of this town in his thinking...how can we not bite the bullet and cough up the funds necessary? It would seem that some people think there is some other way to protect us and our homes...? Perhaps they will be more forthcoming in the Monday night meeting.... So the decision to go with Chief Frost's request - supported by some on the selectboard - to accept a portion of the fire fighters as regularly paid employees - still faces some challenges.
TPR feels that each individual voter must make his or her own decision on this and all matters. It would seem obvious who cares about this town, and who has an individual perspective with a personal spotlight attached.
And then there is the decision on when an elected selectboard official takes office. Just get on with it. Pick a date - stick with it, move on. The lawsuit is done; there is no need to fiddle around any more. The voters attending did just that - they voted, and showed every intention of moving on.
There followed the regular selectboard meeting: selections for committees; arguments for why this or that should happen or not.
And now we are at the 2-week mark in the month: where the selectboard meets again, giving the public a window on who they are, how they work, and what is really at stake in how our town is run....on our dollar.
Monday, August 9th, Paris town office, selectboard meets at 7 pm. Agenda here. Come if you can. Decisions are made that we pay for - one way or another.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
We all have a stake
Citizen reminder: special town meeting tomorrow (Monday 7-26-10) at the Paris fire station, 7pm.
There have been reminders and highlights in the Advertiser Democrat, the Sun Journal, and The Paris Reporter. The warrant itself has been posted in the Paris town office for almost 2 weeks, and was in TPR on Monday the 19th. The warrant is posted again here.
We all have a stake in how money is spent in the operation of this town, whether we are literally paying money in, or a grant or endowment is being spent on our behalf. We expect straight information, and honest accountability. We will not be patient with spin - and in case any elected official needs to be reminded, we know spin when we hear it.
We citizens almost lost control of this town once. Because several hundred of us rallied, and fought back, we did not. But it is so easy for things to slip though the cracks....
It would hardly take more than one person with a personal need for power to begin to skew our direction; or one individual who operated in a way that included only a select few to begin to narrow public visibility; or a single elected official who might consistently propose only one way of thinking and work to urge others to that personal perspective, a perspective that may or may not reflect what is best for the whole town; and then it would only remain for enough voters to be too busy to look....
It is our expectation that our elected officials have, at all times, the best interests of this town in their minds and actions. But they need to hear from us to know if that is happening. If we don't reflect to them how their actions effect us, they cannot know for sure if they are meeting our expectations. It is a team effort - one component listening to the other and then moving in accord.
We need to speak up. Ask questions. Expect answers. Say Yes - we agree - this is just what we need! or...No - absolutely not - not in my town you don't!
After the town meeting the selectboard will hold their regular meeting. Posted here is the agenda, as well as a list of various town committee members to be appointed.
Our elected officials have a long night ahead of them. They have been having quite a few long nights, as a matter of fact, as do the town manager and town clerk who assist the board, including attending all board meetings. We citizens cannot expect them to act in a vacuum - we are responsible to them just as they are to us. If we can't always get to meetings, we can talk with them apart from meetings, by phone or in person; we can email; we can go to the town office and request information - with advance notice our hard working staff there will assist any question-asker.
But we have to take the initiative. This town belongs to all of us - and any time things even hint otherwise, we need to gather up any red flags, call as many people as we can get a hold of, and do something about it.
Because - if we don't - it's our own fault if we lose control of our town.
There have been reminders and highlights in the Advertiser Democrat, the Sun Journal, and The Paris Reporter. The warrant itself has been posted in the Paris town office for almost 2 weeks, and was in TPR on Monday the 19th. The warrant is posted again here.
We all have a stake in how money is spent in the operation of this town, whether we are literally paying money in, or a grant or endowment is being spent on our behalf. We expect straight information, and honest accountability. We will not be patient with spin - and in case any elected official needs to be reminded, we know spin when we hear it.
We citizens almost lost control of this town once. Because several hundred of us rallied, and fought back, we did not. But it is so easy for things to slip though the cracks....
It would hardly take more than one person with a personal need for power to begin to skew our direction; or one individual who operated in a way that included only a select few to begin to narrow public visibility; or a single elected official who might consistently propose only one way of thinking and work to urge others to that personal perspective, a perspective that may or may not reflect what is best for the whole town; and then it would only remain for enough voters to be too busy to look....
It is our expectation that our elected officials have, at all times, the best interests of this town in their minds and actions. But they need to hear from us to know if that is happening. If we don't reflect to them how their actions effect us, they cannot know for sure if they are meeting our expectations. It is a team effort - one component listening to the other and then moving in accord.
We need to speak up. Ask questions. Expect answers. Say Yes - we agree - this is just what we need! or...No - absolutely not - not in my town you don't!
After the town meeting the selectboard will hold their regular meeting. Posted here is the agenda, as well as a list of various town committee members to be appointed.
Our elected officials have a long night ahead of them. They have been having quite a few long nights, as a matter of fact, as do the town manager and town clerk who assist the board, including attending all board meetings. We citizens cannot expect them to act in a vacuum - we are responsible to them just as they are to us. If we can't always get to meetings, we can talk with them apart from meetings, by phone or in person; we can email; we can go to the town office and request information - with advance notice our hard working staff there will assist any question-asker.
But we have to take the initiative. This town belongs to all of us - and any time things even hint otherwise, we need to gather up any red flags, call as many people as we can get a hold of, and do something about it.
Because - if we don't - it's our own fault if we lose control of our town.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Spend our money, cont.
In preparation for the Special Town Meeting July 26th, fire station, 7pm, the previous post focused on Article #2, an ordinance for a moratorium for any plans for a medical dispensary in Paris, and Article #3, authorizing payment for an out-of-court settlement.
The next article challenges Paris voters to step back and take a look at what they are willing to accept for services vs. what they are willing to pay for. TPR does not have an interest in advising readers what to think; only that we must think. And then stand up for what we believe is right and vote accordingly.
[editor's note: warrant article's official wording has been paraphrased by TPR.]
Article #4: a proposal to pay for staffing the Paris Fire Department in such a way as to provide more thorough fire fighting coverage.
The proposal settled on 2 options to fund paying trained individuals to be on call at the fire station itself for a specified number of hours. The dollar amount requested is $90,995; and, for this year, it must be raised as an amendment to the municipal budget approved by voters in June. Only the options for paying (not the details of the operation) are listed on the warrant: (1) raise part of the amount by additional taxes and take part from a reserve fund; (2) raise the entire amount by additional taxes.
There has been citizen request that there will be a clear and simple one page synopsis of the entire question: of need, suggested solution(s), and description of what the pay covers, to hand out at the special town meeting on the 26th, so citizens will know what questions to ask.
There is no avoiding the serious need for this discussion as well as a decision. However, we should bear in mind that this decision (no matter which payment option is accepted for this year) will require $90,995, or more, every year to come or until a different plan is put in place. It is a decision that requires citizens to put our money where our mouths are.
It requires that we all ask every single question we can think of.
We have to hope there will be answers that suffice, not only from one selectman who often gives the impression he feels he alone has all the answers anyone may need, but from all elected officials, the town manager, and, most specifically, Chief Frost, and any others who may have been involved in doing studies with him on this topic.
Article #5: the question of the legislative body of the town (the voters) setting the date when newly elected selectboard members are seated.
The issue in this article seems to focus on not accepting - in fact, rescinding - the vote of the legislative body (Paris voters) who, in 1999, exercised their option, as allowed by Title 30-A M.S.R.A. §2526, to set July 1 as the date newly elected members are to be seated.
One currently sitting selectman has been vigorously active in this question.
[ editor's note: TPR does not have an investment on when new members are seated. What matters is that the legislative body vote, and then the procedure is consistent each year.]
TPR would offer the following observations:
* that the settlement payment referred to in Article #2 was agreed on for a law suit having as its premise the binding nature of that legislative vote;
*The law firm of Kurtz & Perry gave a written opinion in a 2005 letter that the 1999 vote was not valid;
*Selectman Kurtz may still have an investment in protecting the conclusion his firm presented in that 2005 letter;
* Title 30-A M.R.S.A. §2526 includes several subsections, some rather general, and (1) it might be possible to cherry pick pertinent phrases of choice; and, (2) it might be possible to come up with an interpretation that could seem to provide an answer for more than one situation
* There are a few individuals in this community who may have their own personal reasons for wanting the 1999 vote to be officially rescinded, in order to validate some past personal action.
The pertinent point here is that there would be no reason for this question even being on the warrant of this special town meeting if the 1999 vote had no teeth.
Moral to this story? Do not be fooled by spin. Make your own decision.
The next article challenges Paris voters to step back and take a look at what they are willing to accept for services vs. what they are willing to pay for. TPR does not have an interest in advising readers what to think; only that we must think. And then stand up for what we believe is right and vote accordingly.
[editor's note: warrant article's official wording has been paraphrased by TPR.]
Article #4: a proposal to pay for staffing the Paris Fire Department in such a way as to provide more thorough fire fighting coverage.
The proposal settled on 2 options to fund paying trained individuals to be on call at the fire station itself for a specified number of hours. The dollar amount requested is $90,995; and, for this year, it must be raised as an amendment to the municipal budget approved by voters in June. Only the options for paying (not the details of the operation) are listed on the warrant: (1) raise part of the amount by additional taxes and take part from a reserve fund; (2) raise the entire amount by additional taxes.
There has been citizen request that there will be a clear and simple one page synopsis of the entire question: of need, suggested solution(s), and description of what the pay covers, to hand out at the special town meeting on the 26th, so citizens will know what questions to ask.
There is no avoiding the serious need for this discussion as well as a decision. However, we should bear in mind that this decision (no matter which payment option is accepted for this year) will require $90,995, or more, every year to come or until a different plan is put in place. It is a decision that requires citizens to put our money where our mouths are.
It requires that we all ask every single question we can think of.
We have to hope there will be answers that suffice, not only from one selectman who often gives the impression he feels he alone has all the answers anyone may need, but from all elected officials, the town manager, and, most specifically, Chief Frost, and any others who may have been involved in doing studies with him on this topic.
Article #5: the question of the legislative body of the town (the voters) setting the date when newly elected selectboard members are seated.
The issue in this article seems to focus on not accepting - in fact, rescinding - the vote of the legislative body (Paris voters) who, in 1999, exercised their option, as allowed by Title 30-A M.S.R.A. §2526, to set July 1 as the date newly elected members are to be seated.
One currently sitting selectman has been vigorously active in this question.
[ editor's note: TPR does not have an investment on when new members are seated. What matters is that the legislative body vote, and then the procedure is consistent each year.]
TPR would offer the following observations:
* that the settlement payment referred to in Article #2 was agreed on for a law suit having as its premise the binding nature of that legislative vote;
*The law firm of Kurtz & Perry gave a written opinion in a 2005 letter that the 1999 vote was not valid;
*Selectman Kurtz may still have an investment in protecting the conclusion his firm presented in that 2005 letter;
* Title 30-A M.R.S.A. §2526 includes several subsections, some rather general, and (1) it might be possible to cherry pick pertinent phrases of choice; and, (2) it might be possible to come up with an interpretation that could seem to provide an answer for more than one situation
* There are a few individuals in this community who may have their own personal reasons for wanting the 1999 vote to be officially rescinded, in order to validate some past personal action.
The pertinent point here is that there would be no reason for this question even being on the warrant of this special town meeting if the 1999 vote had no teeth.
Moral to this story? Do not be fooled by spin. Make your own decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)