It is a naive and simplistic notion to say that the Town of Paris is split into 2 factions: the for and the against of " however-the-name-goes-that-day," depending on who's trying to sell it.
The Town of Paris is made up of people; young, old, of mixed income levels, employed currently - or not; men, women, citizens of fixed mind sets, citizens with new ideas, and more, so much more. The breakdown can be done a hundred different ways....
The fact remains, however, that this town is not a private club; nor some sports team looking for a new owner. This town is where we all live, and it belongs to all of us.
The welfare of this town depends on decisions made that reflect all of us, or at least a healthy, open and above board discussion of that, and reasonable conclusions arrived at that serve the town as a whole, both for the moment and for the future.
When the recall of an elected official becomes necessary it is a very serious thing. There are laws and rules surrounding such a procedure that govern the "how to."
However, un-electing an official, an official put into office by a majority vote, does not mean the voters do it on a whim - to prove a point - as a tit for tat.
The move to recall an elected official is the ultimate tool of the voting majority to protect that majority - and their municipality - from incompetent and irresponsible decisions being made by an official, or officials.
We Paris voters must look past the divisiveness and manipulations of a few who have consistently sold us short, thinking Paris voters can't tell - and don't know - which elected officials are doing right by our town and which aren't.
Many voters have already come out to cast their votes for the 2 upcoming recall elections, by absentee ballot.
The two official recall elections will be held at the Paris fire station this week:
Monday, 2-1-10, 8am - 8pm
Vote to recall Selectman David Ivey; check yes or no;
Vote to recall Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick; check yes or no.
Friday, 2-5-10, 8am-8pm
Vote to recall Selectman Ray Glover; check yes or no;
Vote to recall Selectman Troy Ripley; check yes or no.
If you can vote in person Monday but cannot Friday, vote absentee ballot before Friday at the town office.
Do not be confused by Mr. Ripley's "resignation from office" - that "resignation" was not officially accepted by the board. Both names on the ballot for Friday must be voted yes or no just as planned.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Did I say I resigned?
As of 2 PM Wednesday, Ch. Ivey had refused to set an emergency meeting for selectmen to officially accept Mr. Ripley's resignation from the board as his letter stated Monday night.
Seems like that formality was somehow missed at the meeting when everyone was right there, in public, and all...
So. Mr. R can now renege at his leisure; or, just try to confuse Paris voters enough to not show up to vote Feb. 5th on the recall election that includes Ripley's name as well as Selectman Glover's.
Perhaps Mr. R thinks the voters in the Town of Paris are not smart enough to get who is doing right by this town and who isn't? That it isn't obvious who is playing games and who isn't? Is he kidding?
Feb. 1 - Recall election at the Paris Fire Station: on the ballot - D. Ivey and Lloyd "Skip" Herrick. Check Yes or No in the boxes by each name.
Feb. 5 - Recall election at the Paris Fire Station: on the ballot - Ray Glover and Troy Ripley.
Or, vote absentee ballot at the Paris Town Office for both ballots until Monday.
And, after that, if you wish, vote absentee ballot at the town office, for Friday, if you can't get to the polls Friday Feb.5th.
Confused? Call the Paris Town Office, 743-2501. Your vote counts. Don't lose out.
Seems like that formality was somehow missed at the meeting when everyone was right there, in public, and all...
So. Mr. R can now renege at his leisure; or, just try to confuse Paris voters enough to not show up to vote Feb. 5th on the recall election that includes Ripley's name as well as Selectman Glover's.
Perhaps Mr. R thinks the voters in the Town of Paris are not smart enough to get who is doing right by this town and who isn't? That it isn't obvious who is playing games and who isn't? Is he kidding?
Feb. 1 - Recall election at the Paris Fire Station: on the ballot - D. Ivey and Lloyd "Skip" Herrick. Check Yes or No in the boxes by each name.
Feb. 5 - Recall election at the Paris Fire Station: on the ballot - Ray Glover and Troy Ripley.
Or, vote absentee ballot at the Paris Town Office for both ballots until Monday.
And, after that, if you wish, vote absentee ballot at the town office, for Friday, if you can't get to the polls Friday Feb.5th.
Confused? Call the Paris Town Office, 743-2501. Your vote counts. Don't lose out.
Costs looming ahead....
Two recent postings, A Better Use, 1-24-10, and Different Direction...cont., 1-25-10, have focused primarily on what this town has already paid out - or has been lined up to pay.
Looking ahead, in the weeks not so distant now, to the situation that no selectman or town manager is comfortable talking about or answering questions on because of alleged, or, sometimes, real ongoing legal implications: the Jackson Rule 80-B Complaint.
This is, in effect, a law suit, filed 7-22-09 by former Town Mgr. Jackson after she was fired without cause 6-22-09. This happened at the very first meeting attended by newly elected Selectman T. Ripley, who, along with then serving selectmen D. Ivey and G. Young, voted in a majority of 3-2 to fire her.
The Complaint was filed after it became apparent that Ripley voted before his term was officially to begin. (See posting 7-09-09) There were 9 additional counts as well. The Town of Paris is the named defendant in this Complaint, even though it was the actions of these 3 selectmen that formed the basis for the Complaint. At this point and time, Paris tax payers are slated to pay.
*There have been two offers for settlement made to the selectmen, one public, the other not so public; both were refused. The written offer - that was on the agenda 12-7-09 in an executive session "to discuss pending litigation" - was voted on publicly at the 12-14-09 meeting, and voted down by the 3-2 majority.
But there was an earlier offer, in October, a verbal offer, discussed over the phone, between Town Atty. Hole and "one selectman." The law firm's October 2009 bill included the following items: 10-07-09 Call from Atty. Dench [lawyer representing Jackson] and review file $75; and
10-14-09 Calls from David and to Atty. Dench, brief conference with Atty. Dench and call to David $150.
Neither the public, nor the press, nor, very possibly, the 2 minority selectmen knew about this phone offer. And... it was turned down, in a decision made behind closed doors.
So, no settlement agreement considerations to stem legal fees and pending court costs for the tax payers in Paris.
*Depositions are scheduled to be taken from each of the 3 selectmen. Notwithstanding the outcome of the case, the cost for the deposition process is estimated at several thousand for each side of the case, for preparation, representation, etc.
*Any final $$ settlement, a court decision, at this point, evidently, since the 3-2 majority does not wish to look at anything else, is beyond measure.
Legal bills, to the tune of almost $6,000 to deal specifically with the result of a needless, irresponsible action; hiring costs in the possible ball park of $12,000 from plugging up administrative holes left as a result of a needless, irresponsible action; pending court and additional legal costs, at a minimum several thousand dollars, looming because of a needless, irresponsible action. Was this, all of this sad, sorry business, just because of a personal vendetta?
Looking ahead, in the weeks not so distant now, to the situation that no selectman or town manager is comfortable talking about or answering questions on because of alleged, or, sometimes, real ongoing legal implications: the Jackson Rule 80-B Complaint.
This is, in effect, a law suit, filed 7-22-09 by former Town Mgr. Jackson after she was fired without cause 6-22-09. This happened at the very first meeting attended by newly elected Selectman T. Ripley, who, along with then serving selectmen D. Ivey and G. Young, voted in a majority of 3-2 to fire her.
The Complaint was filed after it became apparent that Ripley voted before his term was officially to begin. (See posting 7-09-09) There were 9 additional counts as well. The Town of Paris is the named defendant in this Complaint, even though it was the actions of these 3 selectmen that formed the basis for the Complaint. At this point and time, Paris tax payers are slated to pay.
*There have been two offers for settlement made to the selectmen, one public, the other not so public; both were refused. The written offer - that was on the agenda 12-7-09 in an executive session "to discuss pending litigation" - was voted on publicly at the 12-14-09 meeting, and voted down by the 3-2 majority.
But there was an earlier offer, in October, a verbal offer, discussed over the phone, between Town Atty. Hole and "one selectman." The law firm's October 2009 bill included the following items: 10-07-09 Call from Atty. Dench [lawyer representing Jackson] and review file $75; and
10-14-09 Calls from David and to Atty. Dench, brief conference with Atty. Dench and call to David $150.
Neither the public, nor the press, nor, very possibly, the 2 minority selectmen knew about this phone offer. And... it was turned down, in a decision made behind closed doors.
So, no settlement agreement considerations to stem legal fees and pending court costs for the tax payers in Paris.
*Depositions are scheduled to be taken from each of the 3 selectmen. Notwithstanding the outcome of the case, the cost for the deposition process is estimated at several thousand for each side of the case, for preparation, representation, etc.
*Any final $$ settlement, a court decision, at this point, evidently, since the 3-2 majority does not wish to look at anything else, is beyond measure.
Legal bills, to the tune of almost $6,000 to deal specifically with the result of a needless, irresponsible action; hiring costs in the possible ball park of $12,000 from plugging up administrative holes left as a result of a needless, irresponsible action; pending court and additional legal costs, at a minimum several thousand dollars, looming because of a needless, irresponsible action. Was this, all of this sad, sorry business, just because of a personal vendetta?
Monday, January 25, 2010
I resign....or maybe not...
Vice Chairman T. Ripley left a brief letter of resignation tonight with his fellow selectmen: "I resign from my position on the board, effective immediately."
Now, if you wanted to fool people into thinking you had resigned, sort of, wouldn't that be a great way to keep people from going out to vote in a recall election that had you as one of the people on the ballot for recall? And maybe in the bargain, the voters would vote the other guy out but forget to vote one way or the other on you?
Be very clear on this, Paris voters: there is a recall election with Troy Ripley's name on the ballot, as well as Ray Glover's name, Friday Feb. 5th.
Go. And. Vote.
There is another recall vote Monday Feb. 1st, with David Ivey's name, as well as Skip Herrick's.
Go. And. Vote. Both days.
Or, vote absentee ballot at the town office, pick your day.
Please pay close attention to which name you are checking which box for.
Now, if you wanted to fool people into thinking you had resigned, sort of, wouldn't that be a great way to keep people from going out to vote in a recall election that had you as one of the people on the ballot for recall? And maybe in the bargain, the voters would vote the other guy out but forget to vote one way or the other on you?
Be very clear on this, Paris voters: there is a recall election with Troy Ripley's name on the ballot, as well as Ray Glover's name, Friday Feb. 5th.
Go. And. Vote.
There is another recall vote Monday Feb. 1st, with David Ivey's name, as well as Skip Herrick's.
Go. And. Vote. Both days.
Or, vote absentee ballot at the town office, pick your day.
Please pay close attention to which name you are checking which box for.
Different direction....cont.
Since the 3-2 majority on the Paris Selectboard saw fit to dispose of the perfectly capable town manager in June 2009 and go in a different direction, let's look at the cost for Paris tax payers in the realm of town managers .
[editor's note: This will only be a look at the $$. The other factors that make up the rest of the story about The Cost - leadership, or the lack of it; competence, or the lack of it; accountability, or the lack of it - all of that is another look for another day.]
If former Town Manager Jackson had continued in Paris after 6-22-09, at her new salary and benefits schedule starting 7-1-09, by 1-1-10 it would have cost the Town of Paris $38,709.
Jackson, however, was replaced by an interim manager who worked fewer days, and only a few hours on those days. From 7-13-09 to 1-22-10, M. Thorne was paid $16,200.
Good thing, that, the smaller paycheck for an interim, because the fired manager was also being paid at the same time. From July 7 to Nov 3 09, it cost the Town of Paris $25,200 for S. Jackson's salary and benefits severance pay.
Interim plus severance= $41,400; $2,691 more for this different direction.
And...beginning the week ending 1-09-10, the Town of Paris will be billed $356 every week for S. Jackson's unemployment check. $1,068 ending the week of 1-23-10.
6 months of unemployment checks= $9,256 more for this different direction.
As of Jan. 4, 2010, a new town manager in Paris. Phil Tarr has been hired, full time, with a pay scale similar to former Mgr. Jackson's, though slightly higher in total. A comparison is linked to this post.
On the face of it, the weekly paycheck to Mr. Tarr ($1,096.15) is less than the weekly paycheck to S. Jackson would have been ($1,233.00). However, Mr. Tarr's Total contract holds an increase of $882.46 over S. Jackson's new contract.
Total of new manager's contract = $825.46 more for this different direction.
This article is in no way a commentary on Mr. Tarr. The intent of this posting is simply to point out the needless expense forced on the tax payers of the Town of Paris; 3 selectmen did not seem to be able to control their tempers, and apparently decided that firing a nemesis was the best way to handle that anger.
$12,772.46 totally unnecessary taxpayer dollars for this different direction.
Paris had 6 months of a part time administrator; of questionable decisions by the majority on the selectboard who often decided in his stead; and now another brand new manager. This is the different direction taxpayers had to pay an extra $12.7 K for? What's wrong with this picture?
[editor's note: This will only be a look at the $$. The other factors that make up the rest of the story about The Cost - leadership, or the lack of it; competence, or the lack of it; accountability, or the lack of it - all of that is another look for another day.]
If former Town Manager Jackson had continued in Paris after 6-22-09, at her new salary and benefits schedule starting 7-1-09, by 1-1-10 it would have cost the Town of Paris $38,709.
Jackson, however, was replaced by an interim manager who worked fewer days, and only a few hours on those days. From 7-13-09 to 1-22-10, M. Thorne was paid $16,200.
Good thing, that, the smaller paycheck for an interim, because the fired manager was also being paid at the same time. From July 7 to Nov 3 09, it cost the Town of Paris $25,200 for S. Jackson's salary and benefits severance pay.
Interim plus severance= $41,400; $2,691 more for this different direction.
And...beginning the week ending 1-09-10, the Town of Paris will be billed $356 every week for S. Jackson's unemployment check. $1,068 ending the week of 1-23-10.
6 months of unemployment checks= $9,256 more for this different direction.
As of Jan. 4, 2010, a new town manager in Paris. Phil Tarr has been hired, full time, with a pay scale similar to former Mgr. Jackson's, though slightly higher in total. A comparison is linked to this post.
On the face of it, the weekly paycheck to Mr. Tarr ($1,096.15) is less than the weekly paycheck to S. Jackson would have been ($1,233.00). However, Mr. Tarr's Total contract holds an increase of $882.46 over S. Jackson's new contract.
Total of new manager's contract = $825.46 more for this different direction.
This article is in no way a commentary on Mr. Tarr. The intent of this posting is simply to point out the needless expense forced on the tax payers of the Town of Paris; 3 selectmen did not seem to be able to control their tempers, and apparently decided that firing a nemesis was the best way to handle that anger.
$12,772.46 totally unnecessary taxpayer dollars for this different direction.
Paris had 6 months of a part time administrator; of questionable decisions by the majority on the selectboard who often decided in his stead; and now another brand new manager. This is the different direction taxpayers had to pay an extra $12.7 K for? What's wrong with this picture?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
A better use?
Could there be a better use for our tax dollars?
"I think we gotta go in a different direction than the way we been going" - Selectman G. Young's prophetic statement on June 22, 2009, after the newly installed Selectman T. Ripley joined Selectman D. Ivey and Young to make a majority of 3 against 2. They immediately fired a perfectly competent town manager without cause, and have continued to shoot from the hip by forcing questionable selectboard decisions in the 6 months since.
Well,the Town of Paris certainly has done that - the "different direction" part.
There are several ways to calculate even just the cold hard $$ cost of that different direction. One very clear way is to look at the bills from the legal firm that represents the Town of Paris. The legal costs category is a line item in the budget approved by Paris voters at the open town meeting every June. The citizens on the budget committee include that for paying the town's attorney, or covering possible court costs that might incure in the course of running the town.
The line item amount for 2009-10 is $8000. When that amount is exhausted, any extra amount is drawn from other items in the total budgeted for Administration. When that is exhausted....???
The Paris Reporter posted as links, in past articles, Bernstein Shur bills 7-09, 8-09, 9-09.
In addition to other costs, each of these bills included items relating to legal complications resulting from the firing, and later to the Jackson 80-B Complaint (law suit).
By the end of August 09, the costs incurred by the direct actions of the 3-2 majority (the firing and the resulting law suit) came to $2257.03; another $774.50 brought the total, by the end of September, to $3031.53. 38 % of the total legal expenses line item.
October's bill shows $225.00 of the $234.50 total devoted to the Jackson 80-B Complaint. Total $3256.53. 41% of the total legal expenses line item.
November adds only $150 to the Jackson 80-B Complaint. Total $3406.53. 43% of the total legal expenses line item.
However, November's bill brings another category for costs: legal discussions -yet again - on who is responsible for Town Farm Road. Mr. Hanley, the private attorney for a certain selectman whose brother owns property that would benefit from that road, brought a matter to the selectboard that has been thoroughly looked at before. The law firm of Kurtz and Perry did an extensive review of this in 2005; and both Kurtz and Perry, as well as the firm of Bernstein Shur, provided the town with information showing this was not a town road. Paris citizens pay again, just the same: $500.
December's bill (two parts; "General" and "Jackson Rule 80-B Complaint") is lengthy. More costs were added to the Town Farm Road matter, for another $500, bringing the total for Town Farm Road legal discussions initiated by Mr. Hanley to $1000. This brings the total legal costs relating to personal agendas of specific selectboard members to $4406.53. 55% of the total legal expenses line item.
By now another new category is added to the bill citizens of Paris get to pay: the attorney fees to save certain officials from being thrown out of office by the very people who elected them. (Something wrong with a picture of us paying attorney fees to protect those officials from us...).
Five of the items in this bill were related to thwarting recall efforts; including a special selectmen's meeting 12-18 that was clearly for the purpose of figuring out how to negate a citizen petition to a notary to set a town meeting. Having the attorney attend that meeting cost the town $650, and from that meeting came the twice-as-expensive and not-convenient-for-anyone recall elections on 2 totally separate days. These 5 items add up to $1131.00. Total so far? $5537.53. 69% of the total legal expenses line item.
The December bill itemizes $325 for costs related to the Jackson 80-B Complaint.
Total, end of December 2009, for legal costs incurred by decisions made and actions taken by the 3-2 majority on the Paris Board of Selectmen since June 2009 = $5862.53.
A staggering 73% of the total legal line item in the budget for the Town of Paris 2009-2010 has been spent as a result of a personal agenda.
The legal costs mentioned above are specific ones. There are other legal costs, as well. We are not even into February. Citizens need to be asking "How are we going to make it to June?"
"I think we gotta go in a different direction than the way we been going" - Selectman G. Young's prophetic statement on June 22, 2009, after the newly installed Selectman T. Ripley joined Selectman D. Ivey and Young to make a majority of 3 against 2. They immediately fired a perfectly competent town manager without cause, and have continued to shoot from the hip by forcing questionable selectboard decisions in the 6 months since.
Well,the Town of Paris certainly has done that - the "different direction" part.
There are several ways to calculate even just the cold hard $$ cost of that different direction. One very clear way is to look at the bills from the legal firm that represents the Town of Paris. The legal costs category is a line item in the budget approved by Paris voters at the open town meeting every June. The citizens on the budget committee include that for paying the town's attorney, or covering possible court costs that might incure in the course of running the town.
The line item amount for 2009-10 is $8000. When that amount is exhausted, any extra amount is drawn from other items in the total budgeted for Administration. When that is exhausted....???
The Paris Reporter posted as links, in past articles, Bernstein Shur bills 7-09, 8-09, 9-09.
In addition to other costs, each of these bills included items relating to legal complications resulting from the firing, and later to the Jackson 80-B Complaint (law suit).
By the end of August 09, the costs incurred by the direct actions of the 3-2 majority (the firing and the resulting law suit) came to $2257.03; another $774.50 brought the total, by the end of September, to $3031.53. 38 % of the total legal expenses line item.
October's bill shows $225.00 of the $234.50 total devoted to the Jackson 80-B Complaint. Total $3256.53. 41% of the total legal expenses line item.
November adds only $150 to the Jackson 80-B Complaint. Total $3406.53. 43% of the total legal expenses line item.
However, November's bill brings another category for costs: legal discussions -yet again - on who is responsible for Town Farm Road. Mr. Hanley, the private attorney for a certain selectman whose brother owns property that would benefit from that road, brought a matter to the selectboard that has been thoroughly looked at before. The law firm of Kurtz and Perry did an extensive review of this in 2005; and both Kurtz and Perry, as well as the firm of Bernstein Shur, provided the town with information showing this was not a town road. Paris citizens pay again, just the same: $500.
December's bill (two parts; "General" and "Jackson Rule 80-B Complaint") is lengthy. More costs were added to the Town Farm Road matter, for another $500, bringing the total for Town Farm Road legal discussions initiated by Mr. Hanley to $1000. This brings the total legal costs relating to personal agendas of specific selectboard members to $4406.53. 55% of the total legal expenses line item.
By now another new category is added to the bill citizens of Paris get to pay: the attorney fees to save certain officials from being thrown out of office by the very people who elected them. (Something wrong with a picture of us paying attorney fees to protect those officials from us...).
Five of the items in this bill were related to thwarting recall efforts; including a special selectmen's meeting 12-18 that was clearly for the purpose of figuring out how to negate a citizen petition to a notary to set a town meeting. Having the attorney attend that meeting cost the town $650, and from that meeting came the twice-as-expensive and not-convenient-for-anyone recall elections on 2 totally separate days. These 5 items add up to $1131.00. Total so far? $5537.53. 69% of the total legal expenses line item.
The December bill itemizes $325 for costs related to the Jackson 80-B Complaint.
Total, end of December 2009, for legal costs incurred by decisions made and actions taken by the 3-2 majority on the Paris Board of Selectmen since June 2009 = $5862.53.
A staggering 73% of the total legal line item in the budget for the Town of Paris 2009-2010 has been spent as a result of a personal agenda.
The legal costs mentioned above are specific ones. There are other legal costs, as well. We are not even into February. Citizens need to be asking "How are we going to make it to June?"
Friday, January 22, 2010
Monday Night's Meeting
Monday January 25, 7PM, Paris Selectmen will meet at the Paris Fire Station. Agenda is linked here.
Interesting, the items. Will there be changes? Who knows? This will be the last full meeting of the board before the recall elections next week.
Monday Feb. 1st's recall election has on the ballot:
Selectman David Ivey, recall Yes or No; Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick, recall Yes or No.
Friday Feb. 5th's recall election has on the ballot:
Selectman Ray Glover, recall Yes or No; Selectman Troy Ripley, recall Yes or No.
There is the option of absentee ballot voting at the Paris Town Office before the election dates - vote on all 4 in one visit.
Interesting, the items. Will there be changes? Who knows? This will be the last full meeting of the board before the recall elections next week.
Monday Feb. 1st's recall election has on the ballot:
Selectman David Ivey, recall Yes or No; Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick, recall Yes or No.
Friday Feb. 5th's recall election has on the ballot:
Selectman Ray Glover, recall Yes or No; Selectman Troy Ripley, recall Yes or No.
There is the option of absentee ballot voting at the Paris Town Office before the election dates - vote on all 4 in one visit.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Clarification for Paris Voters
There have been questions - and Paris voters must be absolutely clear what's going on.
On January 7th, Paris voters came out in record numbers to a "Special Town Meeting" to challenge what was intended by a few town officials to be a slam dunk to force through some legislation that - in the view of many - would have been detrimental to the town of Paris as a whole. At best, it threatened the wishes of hundreds of voters who approved a recall ordinance in November, and some hundreds more who petitioned, twice, to facilitate a recall of certain town officials.
However: Paris Voters - the recall has not happened yet.
About this business of Recall:
- January 7th was not it.
- January 19th was not it.
- February 1 and February 5 ARE IT.
Hopefully there will be reminders in the public media.
It was a rainy election day back on June 10, 2009. Some potential voters were too busy, some were not worried about the result, and some felt their vote didn't matter. 50 votes swung the total. And this town is going to be recovering for a long time because of the results of that vote.
We have a chance to change the direction that June 2009 vote has taken us in. This recall effort gives us that chance. And then, the Town of Paris can consider how to repair the damage inflicted by 6 months of an irresponsible and self- serving agenda.
The recall schedule itself has been made as confusing as possible. Tricks have made the recall effort look like a trick itself. But Paris voters must be wiser still.
Be absolutely clear, Paris voters. Tell everyone you know to turn out and:
* vote on both days;
* vote "yes" or "no" by each of the 2 names on the ballot for each day.
Or, better still, vote early, before the election dates, at the Paris Town Office by absentee ballot and cast your vote on each of the 4 candidates for recall on one day, at your leisure.
Be sure who you are voting on each time you mark those ballot questions. Consider the alternatives....
Pass this on to everyone you talk to.
On January 7th, Paris voters came out in record numbers to a "Special Town Meeting" to challenge what was intended by a few town officials to be a slam dunk to force through some legislation that - in the view of many - would have been detrimental to the town of Paris as a whole. At best, it threatened the wishes of hundreds of voters who approved a recall ordinance in November, and some hundreds more who petitioned, twice, to facilitate a recall of certain town officials.
However: Paris Voters - the recall has not happened yet.
About this business of Recall:
- January 7th was not it.
- January 19th was not it.
- February 1 and February 5 ARE IT.
Hopefully there will be reminders in the public media.
It was a rainy election day back on June 10, 2009. Some potential voters were too busy, some were not worried about the result, and some felt their vote didn't matter. 50 votes swung the total. And this town is going to be recovering for a long time because of the results of that vote.
We have a chance to change the direction that June 2009 vote has taken us in. This recall effort gives us that chance. And then, the Town of Paris can consider how to repair the damage inflicted by 6 months of an irresponsible and self- serving agenda.
The recall schedule itself has been made as confusing as possible. Tricks have made the recall effort look like a trick itself. But Paris voters must be wiser still.
Be absolutely clear, Paris voters. Tell everyone you know to turn out and:
* vote on both days;
* vote "yes" or "no" by each of the 2 names on the ballot for each day.
Or, better still, vote early, before the election dates, at the Paris Town Office by absentee ballot and cast your vote on each of the 4 candidates for recall on one day, at your leisure.
Be sure who you are voting on each time you mark those ballot questions. Consider the alternatives....
Pass this on to everyone you talk to.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Set the record straight
To be certain that facts are accurate on the topic of recalls and petitions and legal roles, let's recap:
*Two citizen petitions for recall were filed - 338 signatures to recall Selectman David Ivey, and 334 signatures to recall selectmen Troy Ripley - and were certified 11-24-09 by then Paris Town Clerk Anne Pastore;
*12-07-09, whether because of failure to agree on a date, or failure to look at a calendar, or disbelief in the deadline set in the recall ordinance for the town of Paris, selectmen refused to do their ministerial duty to set a date for the recall election requested in the 11-24-09 petition;
*12-14-09, a citizen petition, filed in accordance with 30-A MRSA §2521(4), certified by then Town Clerk Pastore with 279 signatures, asked a notary public to call a town meeting for the voters in Paris so there could be a recall election for the aforementioned selectmen;
*Town officials refused to respond, in any way, to the 279 petitioners [see editor's note below], and would not facilitate either a town meeting or an election. Selectmen chose, instead, to schedule their own version of elections (the field having grown from 2 candidates to 4...).
[editor's note: a citizens' petition to a notary public to perform a task is still a citizens' petition. The notary public is not the representative for the citizens, simply the performer of a task. The individual contact for a citizens' petition would be on file in the town office.]
In The Sun Journal, 1-18-10, "Paris declines participation in election called by notary," a communication from Town Attorney G. Hole is quoted with various directives about what citizens can and cannot expect as far as their petitioned requests. It is to be supposed, perhaps, that a one-month-late response is better than no response at all.....
Although if a tax payer was one month late with a tax payment, one month late would be far too late....
In addition, in The Sun Journal article mentioned above, the following statement appears: "Hole, in a letter to [Interim Town Clerk] Knox also said the recall ordinance does not allow a notary to call a town meeting...."
While Hole's statement is true, it's completely misleading - a mixing of apples and oranges. There is no mention whatsoever of a notary public in the "Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine."
It is statutes and job descriptions that describe and limit a notary public's role in calling town meetings; a recall ordinance plays no part in telling a notary public what to do.
Whether this confusing statement was an interpretation by the town office or the Journal is not important; what is important is to be accurate.
*Two citizen petitions for recall were filed - 338 signatures to recall Selectman David Ivey, and 334 signatures to recall selectmen Troy Ripley - and were certified 11-24-09 by then Paris Town Clerk Anne Pastore;
*12-07-09, whether because of failure to agree on a date, or failure to look at a calendar, or disbelief in the deadline set in the recall ordinance for the town of Paris, selectmen refused to do their ministerial duty to set a date for the recall election requested in the 11-24-09 petition;
*12-14-09, a citizen petition, filed in accordance with 30-A MRSA §2521(4), certified by then Town Clerk Pastore with 279 signatures, asked a notary public to call a town meeting for the voters in Paris so there could be a recall election for the aforementioned selectmen;
*Town officials refused to respond, in any way, to the 279 petitioners [see editor's note below], and would not facilitate either a town meeting or an election. Selectmen chose, instead, to schedule their own version of elections (the field having grown from 2 candidates to 4...).
[editor's note: a citizens' petition to a notary public to perform a task is still a citizens' petition. The notary public is not the representative for the citizens, simply the performer of a task. The individual contact for a citizens' petition would be on file in the town office.]
In The Sun Journal, 1-18-10, "Paris declines participation in election called by notary," a communication from Town Attorney G. Hole is quoted with various directives about what citizens can and cannot expect as far as their petitioned requests. It is to be supposed, perhaps, that a one-month-late response is better than no response at all.....
Although if a tax payer was one month late with a tax payment, one month late would be far too late....
In addition, in The Sun Journal article mentioned above, the following statement appears: "Hole, in a letter to [Interim Town Clerk] Knox also said the recall ordinance does not allow a notary to call a town meeting...."
While Hole's statement is true, it's completely misleading - a mixing of apples and oranges. There is no mention whatsoever of a notary public in the "Ordinance for a Recall Election in the Town of Paris, Maine."
It is statutes and job descriptions that describe and limit a notary public's role in calling town meetings; a recall ordinance plays no part in telling a notary public what to do.
Whether this confusing statement was an interpretation by the town office or the Journal is not important; what is important is to be accurate.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
NPSW Meeting
Norway-Paris Solid Waste board meets Friday, 1-15-10, 6:00 p.m., Norway town office.
Paris (and Norway) voters should plan to attend to see just how the members of the NPSW board feel about the decision we made in June, 2009 when we passed the current interlocal agreement concerning NPSW.
In last June's municipal elections, following extensive work by an ad hoc committee on revising the interlocal agreement - the document which establishes the NPSW board and outlines its operation - both towns voted to implement that agreement.
Since June, 2009, the NPSW board has continued to chafe at the notion that it is only a creature of an interlocal agreement, and in recent letters from the NPSW board to the boards of selectmen in both towns, announced that it has redrafted its bylaws - in ways that appear contrary to that agreement.
Please plan on attending the meeting. One might ask the board members what they think it was that last June's voters from both towns directed them to do on behalf of the two towns....
Paris (and Norway) voters should plan to attend to see just how the members of the NPSW board feel about the decision we made in June, 2009 when we passed the current interlocal agreement concerning NPSW.
In last June's municipal elections, following extensive work by an ad hoc committee on revising the interlocal agreement - the document which establishes the NPSW board and outlines its operation - both towns voted to implement that agreement.
Since June, 2009, the NPSW board has continued to chafe at the notion that it is only a creature of an interlocal agreement, and in recent letters from the NPSW board to the boards of selectmen in both towns, announced that it has redrafted its bylaws - in ways that appear contrary to that agreement.
Please plan on attending the meeting. One might ask the board members what they think it was that last June's voters from both towns directed them to do on behalf of the two towns....
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Better check your figures...
When new Town Manager Tarr read his manager's report to the audience last night (1-11-10) at the selectmen's meeting, he presented a pretty grim forecast for the financial landscape of Paris. Indeed, budget cuts at the state level are having a devastating effect on municipalities across the board. It is only prudent to be concerned.
However. statements reflecting detailed financial workings of a town - indeed, any institution - require a careful, in-depth inspection. It would suggest a need for caution and step-by-step examination of the fiscal planning and history of the town's workings in a broad range of areas.
State cuts notwithstanding, and any discussion of budget oversight in the interim town manager's office for the last 6 months aside, there is an error in Mr. Tarr's report that must be corrected.
In his list of payments, principals, and budgeted items, Mr. Tarr said: "We have a couple of other things you need to know about. The bond payment for the fire station [referring to a General Obligation Bond, taken out by the town in 2003 to pay for 2 things: (1) the new fire station on Western Avenue; and (2) a utility project for KBS Builders on Route 26] which has 2 payments per year - one is an interest payment of about $33,000, the other, an interest and principal payment that totals about $150,000. Only the $150,000 payment [ due Jan.1]was budgeted for this year. The $33,000 payment [due July 1]which was the sole interest payment, was not included in the budget....we will need to revisit that before the end of the year and cover that as an overdraft." [For further comments check NPC-TV recording.]
The statement would indicate some very careless budget planning...if the implications were true.
Based on the cost of the project funded by the bond, the division of payment for the two items being funded in the 2003 bond agreement worked out to (1) new fire station = 81% of the cost, to be repaid annually by Town of Paris tax payers; (2) Rt. 26 TIF = 19% of the cost, to be repaid annually by taxes paid to the Town of Paris by Paris Holdings (KBS).
That 19%, or the $ amount Mr. Tarr referred to, would not be listed in the line items of the town budget. It would be found in line 9 on one of the Mill Rate Calculation forms where the TIF amounts are recorded. This was prepared by former tax assessor John Brushwein. This form is a public document, and is on file in the tax assessor's office. The figure in question, listed as TIF Financing Plan Amount , has been planned for, since 2003, and is known as the Rte. 26 Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF). The amount of the TIF is taken off the top of the bond payment amount, so to speak, and included with the County Tax, Municipal Appropriation, and School District to calculate the mil rate.
Mr. Tarr is newly on board, and most likely did not have an opportunity to investigate in depth as he might have wished. Did any other individual steer him on a certain path? Surely not....
However. statements reflecting detailed financial workings of a town - indeed, any institution - require a careful, in-depth inspection. It would suggest a need for caution and step-by-step examination of the fiscal planning and history of the town's workings in a broad range of areas.
State cuts notwithstanding, and any discussion of budget oversight in the interim town manager's office for the last 6 months aside, there is an error in Mr. Tarr's report that must be corrected.
In his list of payments, principals, and budgeted items, Mr. Tarr said: "We have a couple of other things you need to know about. The bond payment for the fire station [referring to a General Obligation Bond, taken out by the town in 2003 to pay for 2 things: (1) the new fire station on Western Avenue; and (2) a utility project for KBS Builders on Route 26] which has 2 payments per year - one is an interest payment of about $33,000, the other, an interest and principal payment that totals about $150,000. Only the $150,000 payment [ due Jan.1]was budgeted for this year. The $33,000 payment [due July 1]which was the sole interest payment, was not included in the budget....we will need to revisit that before the end of the year and cover that as an overdraft." [For further comments check NPC-TV recording.]
The statement would indicate some very careless budget planning...if the implications were true.
Based on the cost of the project funded by the bond, the division of payment for the two items being funded in the 2003 bond agreement worked out to (1) new fire station = 81% of the cost, to be repaid annually by Town of Paris tax payers; (2) Rt. 26 TIF = 19% of the cost, to be repaid annually by taxes paid to the Town of Paris by Paris Holdings (KBS).
That 19%, or the $ amount Mr. Tarr referred to, would not be listed in the line items of the town budget. It would be found in line 9 on one of the Mill Rate Calculation forms where the TIF amounts are recorded. This was prepared by former tax assessor John Brushwein. This form is a public document, and is on file in the tax assessor's office. The figure in question, listed as TIF Financing Plan Amount , has been planned for, since 2003, and is known as the Rte. 26 Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF). The amount of the TIF is taken off the top of the bond payment amount, so to speak, and included with the County Tax, Municipal Appropriation, and School District to calculate the mil rate.
Mr. Tarr is newly on board, and most likely did not have an opportunity to investigate in depth as he might have wished. Did any other individual steer him on a certain path? Surely not....
Monday, January 11, 2010
Watchful and serious
Watchful and serious, the 40, or so, Paris voters who turned out for Monday night's selectmen's meeting had only a little over an hour's worth of town business transactions to watch. Mainly procedural, no surprises.
New Town Mgr. Tarr opened the dusty and cobweb-covered chest of the public's-right-to-know a tiny crack when he added his manager's report to the agenda after all the other items were finished, and actually read it aloud.
It was a general statement: the effect of state cuts; concern that probably there wasn't enough money to get Paris past March, thereby quietly launching the suggestion of a loan for the town; mention of a few key numbers.
A citizen asked early in the meeting about the possible court costs if the town loses the law suit incurred by the 3-2 split vote when they irresponsibly fired previous town manager Jackson last June. Chairman Ivey made it clear that wasn't something we could know because all that took place in executive session. Pesky citizens...
So, it would stand to reason that if there's not enough money to run the town after March without a loan, court costs certainly aren't going to be particularly available either. A bigger loan...?
Watchful and serious in the audience. Having had a distinct lack of fiscal information since before June 22, even hearing generalized statements was like waking from a deep sleep. It will be crucial for Paris voters to do their homework, bring critical questions to the forefront, and demand responsible action on the part of their elected officials.
Selectman Glover managed to grasp Tarr's attention before the chairman shut things down:
"...the next selectmen's meeting, which would be the last one in January, and also the last one before the recall elections - Glen has already stated that he'll be on vacation the month of February - so, I would like to challenge you [Tarr] to think about how we're going to...a contingency plan for authorizations, warrants, and payroll, and whatever you come back with, so that we could take action."
Selectman Herrick: "That's the worst case scenario."
Sel. Glover: "In the best interest of the town, we need to make sure the town continues to operate; that the services are provided and we try not to impact our employees."
Mgr. Tarr: "I'll have it ready for you."
[Editor's note: Paris voters have learned, the hard way, that it is prudent to be watchful and serious. Now we have to ACT. Put this information on your calendars: Feb. 1, come out and vote whether to recall Selectman Ivey and whether to recall Selectman Herrick; Feb. 5. come out and vote whether to recall Selectman Glover and whether to recall Selectman Ripley.
Or, vote absentee ballot at the Paris Town Office. Vote - one time - your choice on all four candidates for recall]
New Town Mgr. Tarr opened the dusty and cobweb-covered chest of the public's-right-to-know a tiny crack when he added his manager's report to the agenda after all the other items were finished, and actually read it aloud.
It was a general statement: the effect of state cuts; concern that probably there wasn't enough money to get Paris past March, thereby quietly launching the suggestion of a loan for the town; mention of a few key numbers.
A citizen asked early in the meeting about the possible court costs if the town loses the law suit incurred by the 3-2 split vote when they irresponsibly fired previous town manager Jackson last June. Chairman Ivey made it clear that wasn't something we could know because all that took place in executive session. Pesky citizens...
So, it would stand to reason that if there's not enough money to run the town after March without a loan, court costs certainly aren't going to be particularly available either. A bigger loan...?
Watchful and serious in the audience. Having had a distinct lack of fiscal information since before June 22, even hearing generalized statements was like waking from a deep sleep. It will be crucial for Paris voters to do their homework, bring critical questions to the forefront, and demand responsible action on the part of their elected officials.
Selectman Glover managed to grasp Tarr's attention before the chairman shut things down:
"...the next selectmen's meeting, which would be the last one in January, and also the last one before the recall elections - Glen has already stated that he'll be on vacation the month of February - so, I would like to challenge you [Tarr] to think about how we're going to...a contingency plan for authorizations, warrants, and payroll, and whatever you come back with, so that we could take action."
Selectman Herrick: "That's the worst case scenario."
Sel. Glover: "In the best interest of the town, we need to make sure the town continues to operate; that the services are provided and we try not to impact our employees."
Mgr. Tarr: "I'll have it ready for you."
[Editor's note: Paris voters have learned, the hard way, that it is prudent to be watchful and serious. Now we have to ACT. Put this information on your calendars: Feb. 1, come out and vote whether to recall Selectman Ivey and whether to recall Selectman Herrick; Feb. 5. come out and vote whether to recall Selectman Glover and whether to recall Selectman Ripley.
Or, vote absentee ballot at the Paris Town Office. Vote - one time - your choice on all four candidates for recall]
Paris Selectmen Meeting 1-11-10
Paris Selectmen will meet at the Paris Fire Station on Western Avenue in Paris, Monday January 11 at 7 pm.
This is a regularly scheduled meeting; agenda, as of Friday 1-8-10, posted on this site, below. Although you never can tell with agendas....
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Play It Again...
The Thursday 1-07-10 town meeting at Paris Elementary school will be aired on NPC-TV (channel 11) Sunday 1-10-10 at 6:30 PM. DVDs are also available from NPC-TV 743-7859.
If you know someone who was not able to attend but wanted to, let them know. Or, even if you were there, tune in and remind yourself how important - and effective - voter involvement is in the running of our town.
If you know someone who was not able to attend but wanted to, let them know. Or, even if you were there, tune in and remind yourself how important - and effective - voter involvement is in the running of our town.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Next Thing
Monday Jan. 11, 2010, Paris Board of Selectmen meet. No word as yet on location. Call Paris Town Office to find out. 743-2501.
The agenda appears to include mostly procedural items....but last meeting (12-28) a new proposed ordinance showed up - unannounced - on the agenda. Very recently, there was "Discussion and action on warrant for a town meeting" zipped in....So....you never know.
A lesson that has been driven home for voters in the Town of Paris is how critical the decisions are that govern how our town operates; and who makes those decisions.
If no one is watching, decisions can be made, over a period of time, that effect many, but benefit only a few. Undoing less than responsible decisions is often far more complicated than preventing them.
Come if you can. Elected officials work for the people who elect them; and the people who elect them need to remind them of that
The agenda appears to include mostly procedural items....but last meeting (12-28) a new proposed ordinance showed up - unannounced - on the agenda. Very recently, there was "Discussion and action on warrant for a town meeting" zipped in....So....you never know.
A lesson that has been driven home for voters in the Town of Paris is how critical the decisions are that govern how our town operates; and who makes those decisions.
If no one is watching, decisions can be made, over a period of time, that effect many, but benefit only a few. Undoing less than responsible decisions is often far more complicated than preventing them.
Come if you can. Elected officials work for the people who elect them; and the people who elect them need to remind them of that
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Reminder
Consider voting absentee ballot for the 2 recall elections in February.(See postings below) Paris Town Office hours are 8:30-4:00.Call 743-8901
There's a message here
7PM Thursday; 25 degrees, windy and dark. People filled up the gymnasium - and part of the cafeteria - of Paris Elementary School; lined up in the lobby; got stuck in traffic in the parking lot; even lined up on High Street waiting to get into the parking lot. 2 Paris Firemen kept count at the door to monitor the occupancy load; 2 Paris Policemen facilitated crowd and traffic control. 2 ballot clerks, two Paris Town office clerks - one of them the interim Town Clerk - managed the crowd's registration and voting, and more.
487 Paris Voters, a record in the history of the Town of Paris for a town meeting, turned out for this hastily-called town meeting that was meant to win some sizeable financial items and turn around a recall ordinance enacted in Nov. 2009, 1556-537, that a certain few felt was unfavorable to their private agendas.
The actual warrant is listed on the previous posting on this site. For purposes of space, the following will be a brief summary:
Article 1: Electing a moderator, essentially a formality requiring 3-5 written ballots, saw 161 written ballots cast.
Article 2: Authorizing the borrowing of money to conduct a town wide tax revaluation: voted by standing, defeated.
Article 3: Approving transfer of money for a water tank replacement Paris Fire Dept: voted by show of hands, approved.
Article 4: Approving transfer of money from Subdivision Recreation Special Revenue Fund for use repairing a snowmobile bridge: voted first by show of hands, then by standing, defeated 186 to 140.
Article 5: Replacement recall ordinance: voted by standing, defeated (unofficial count) 437 to 50.
More business was transacted tonight for the Town of Paris in 2 hours than in 6 months of selectmen's meetings. There's a message here...
487 Paris Voters, a record in the history of the Town of Paris for a town meeting, turned out for this hastily-called town meeting that was meant to win some sizeable financial items and turn around a recall ordinance enacted in Nov. 2009, 1556-537, that a certain few felt was unfavorable to their private agendas.
The actual warrant is listed on the previous posting on this site. For purposes of space, the following will be a brief summary:
Article 1: Electing a moderator, essentially a formality requiring 3-5 written ballots, saw 161 written ballots cast.
Article 2: Authorizing the borrowing of money to conduct a town wide tax revaluation: voted by standing, defeated.
Article 3: Approving transfer of money for a water tank replacement Paris Fire Dept: voted by show of hands, approved.
Article 4: Approving transfer of money from Subdivision Recreation Special Revenue Fund for use repairing a snowmobile bridge: voted first by show of hands, then by standing, defeated 186 to 140.
Article 5: Replacement recall ordinance: voted by standing, defeated (unofficial count) 437 to 50.
More business was transacted tonight for the Town of Paris in 2 hours than in 6 months of selectmen's meetings. There's a message here...
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
All Voters Must Be Allowed
Special Town Meeting Thursday Jan. 7th at Paris Elementary School on High Street, at 7 PM .
There has been discussion of warrant issues on this site, "Put on your calendar for next week ." The warrant is posted here.
Article 5 is a newly proposed replacement for the recall ordinance we Paris voters enacted on Nov. 3 by a vote of 1556-537.
There will be no public hearing for questions and discussion on this newly proposed ordinance beyond a discussion on the floor of this town meeting just before the vote.
The proposed ordinance would make null and void any recall efforts to date, including the Feb. 1 and Feb.5 recall elections.
Many Paris voters have expressed concerns about the items on this warrant.
Unlike selectmen's meetings, where the meeting space can be crafted to limit the audience, a town meeting space must accommodate all registered voters who wish to attend. No registered voter can be denied the opportunity to vote.
If a space cannot safely hold all potential voters, there must be another plan ready to go so that all voters will be accommodated.
Just the same: come as early as you can, and be prepared to stay until the bitter end. Bring others. Every vote counts!
There has been discussion of warrant issues on this site, "Put on your calendar for next week ." The warrant is posted here.
Article 5 is a newly proposed replacement for the recall ordinance we Paris voters enacted on Nov. 3 by a vote of 1556-537.
There will be no public hearing for questions and discussion on this newly proposed ordinance beyond a discussion on the floor of this town meeting just before the vote.
The proposed ordinance would make null and void any recall efforts to date, including the Feb. 1 and Feb.5 recall elections.
Many Paris voters have expressed concerns about the items on this warrant.
Unlike selectmen's meetings, where the meeting space can be crafted to limit the audience, a town meeting space must accommodate all registered voters who wish to attend. No registered voter can be denied the opportunity to vote.
If a space cannot safely hold all potential voters, there must be another plan ready to go so that all voters will be accommodated.
Just the same: come as early as you can, and be prepared to stay until the bitter end. Bring others. Every vote counts!
Monday, January 4, 2010
Recall Ballots
The ballots (click on the names) for the recall elections of Selectman David Ivey & Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick on Feb 1, and Selectman Raymond Glover & Selectman Troy Ripley on Feb. 5 are ready at the town office.
You can make one trip to vote, and handle both recall ballots at one time by voting absentee.
The ballots are reasonably straightforward, but the names are not listed in alphabetical order.
CAUTION: each ballot says "MARK ONE BOX ONLY." Do not be mislead by this.
You will vote twice on each ballot; mark the "yes" or "no" box before each name.
Please share this information with everyone you talk to.
You can make one trip to vote, and handle both recall ballots at one time by voting absentee.
The ballots are reasonably straightforward, but the names are not listed in alphabetical order.
CAUTION: each ballot says "MARK ONE BOX ONLY." Do not be mislead by this.
You will vote twice on each ballot; mark the "yes" or "no" box before each name.
Please share this information with everyone you talk to.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Check on Monday Jan. 4
Paris voters: absentee ballots for the Feb. 1st and Feb. 5th recall elections should be available at the Paris Town Office; call 743-2501 to be sure.
Then consider voting by absentee ballot; 4 recall questions at one time, instead of having to go out to 2 separate recall elections.
Voting absentee allows a voter the following options: (1) vote in the town office; (2) take a ballot home, think it over, mark the choices, bring it back; (3) within certain guidelines, take a ballot to - and bring it back from - an individual who is not physically able to come to the polls themselves to vote; (4) within certain guidelines, pick up a ballot and send it to an out-of-town voter who will not be able to come to the polls on the date(s) in question.
Then consider voting by absentee ballot; 4 recall questions at one time, instead of having to go out to 2 separate recall elections.
Voting absentee allows a voter the following options: (1) vote in the town office; (2) take a ballot home, think it over, mark the choices, bring it back; (3) within certain guidelines, take a ballot to - and bring it back from - an individual who is not physically able to come to the polls themselves to vote; (4) within certain guidelines, pick up a ballot and send it to an out-of-town voter who will not be able to come to the polls on the date(s) in question.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
All Set Up
On December 28th a petition was presented to the selectmen of Paris proposing a replacement recall ordinance to repeal the recall ordinance approved by Paris voters 1556 to 537 on November 3.
The proposed ordinance was immediately placed on the next available warrant, a quickly whipped up Jan. 7th open town meeting with a couple of other high priority $$ items that would guarantee attendance by those hoping for favor.
Consider the following verbatim script (check the DVD recorded by NPC-TV, 12-28-09).
GH: I'm asking that you...that the board would afford me and the citizens I've included in my petitions the same opportunity that Bobbie Jewell and the Citizens for Responsible Government received on the last petition that came through.
[Point of fact: The recall ordinance petition (referenced here) presented 7-13-09 by Bob Jewell, with 354 certified signatures, was never placed on any warrant, available or otherwise, to this day.
[The recall ordinance voted on Nov. 3 was the original ordinance prepared at the selectmen's request by the town's Policy & Procedures Committee. When that original ordinance was presented to the selectmen it was immediately tabled. At that point, citizens took that document, a document drafted in public meetings of the P & P Com., (with copies available on the table of the meeting room where the P & P Com. met) and petitioned to have that proposed ordinance put on a warrant for a vote. For weeks there was no clear answer which copy of the ordinance - if any - would come before the voters at all.
[Are you kidding? This wasn't "asking (for the)same opportunity" as the petitioners represented by Bob Jewell; this was expecting - and later receiving - special dispensation. The same opportunity would have been no opportunity whatsoever.]
GH:I'd like to ask that you include this on the next available warrant, which I understand you are putting through tonight, to have this addressed to the voters. I have enough...um...certified signatures - I can give you a copy if you'd like - if you don't, that's fine. I have a copy of the registrar's certification. I also have a copy of the proposed ordinance.
(Ch. Ivey and Sel. Glover exchange procedural comments)
GH: That's all I really ask, that you folks would consider that...I think we've met all the criteria that we're required to have it added to the next agenda...um...and I would just ask that you include it on the next warrant you were speaking about tonight, for, I believe, Jan. 8 [correct date is Jan.7...] at the meeting that we discuss the fire truck and snowmobile bridge....
I: So...'kay...
Sel. Ripley: I have a question
I: Yeah?
R: [to GH] So, what you're saying is that if we add this to that warrant, you're going to be there to represent it the night when it's voted on the floor?
[Wait a minute - anyone hear GH say he was going to be there and do that? Or was something re-scripted by the selectman recapping GH's commentary? Could there possibly have been prior conversation and GH forgot his lines?]
GH: Yes I will.
R: That will be considered the public hearing.
:
[A Public Hearing. Why yes, of course. Hard questions and honest answers.... Not.]
The proposed ordinance was immediately placed on the next available warrant, a quickly whipped up Jan. 7th open town meeting with a couple of other high priority $$ items that would guarantee attendance by those hoping for favor.
Consider the following verbatim script (check the DVD recorded by NPC-TV, 12-28-09).
GH: I'm asking that you...that the board would afford me and the citizens I've included in my petitions the same opportunity that Bobbie Jewell and the Citizens for Responsible Government received on the last petition that came through.
[Point of fact: The recall ordinance petition (referenced here) presented 7-13-09 by Bob Jewell, with 354 certified signatures, was never placed on any warrant, available or otherwise, to this day.
[The recall ordinance voted on Nov. 3 was the original ordinance prepared at the selectmen's request by the town's Policy & Procedures Committee. When that original ordinance was presented to the selectmen it was immediately tabled. At that point, citizens took that document, a document drafted in public meetings of the P & P Com., (with copies available on the table of the meeting room where the P & P Com. met) and petitioned to have that proposed ordinance put on a warrant for a vote. For weeks there was no clear answer which copy of the ordinance - if any - would come before the voters at all.
[Are you kidding? This wasn't "asking (for the)same opportunity" as the petitioners represented by Bob Jewell; this was expecting - and later receiving - special dispensation. The same opportunity would have been no opportunity whatsoever.]
GH:I'd like to ask that you include this on the next available warrant, which I understand you are putting through tonight, to have this addressed to the voters. I have enough...um...certified signatures - I can give you a copy if you'd like - if you don't, that's fine. I have a copy of the registrar's certification. I also have a copy of the proposed ordinance.
(Ch. Ivey and Sel. Glover exchange procedural comments)
GH: That's all I really ask, that you folks would consider that...I think we've met all the criteria that we're required to have it added to the next agenda...um...and I would just ask that you include it on the next warrant you were speaking about tonight, for, I believe, Jan. 8 [correct date is Jan.7...] at the meeting that we discuss the fire truck and snowmobile bridge....
I: So...'kay...
Sel. Ripley: I have a question
I: Yeah?
R: [to GH] So, what you're saying is that if we add this to that warrant, you're going to be there to represent it the night when it's voted on the floor?
[Wait a minute - anyone hear GH say he was going to be there and do that? Or was something re-scripted by the selectman recapping GH's commentary? Could there possibly have been prior conversation and GH forgot his lines?]
GH: Yes I will.
R: That will be considered the public hearing.
:
[A Public Hearing. Why yes, of course. Hard questions and honest answers.... Not.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)