At the meeting Monday....

...a few (19) citizens; 3 press; 4 selectboard members; one town manager; one town clerk.

A great deal of discussion. Some decisions.

* Acceptance of a $200 gift to Paris Police Department in appreciation from Dr. John Knight;
*Announcement of the removal of an item currently included on the proposed 2010-11 budget, making the total expenditures suddenly $34,712.29 less; (some discussion, and a decision, in an apparent response to a fair amount of homework on the part of several people);

[editor's note: This portion of the TIF payment amount was listed in with the proposed 2010-11 budget figures and did not need to be, according to state revenue service information. The proposed figures on Paris' 2010-11 budget will be changed, with this figure appearing only on the page where the mil rate is calculated - so the amount will not be considered twice.]

*NPSW appointments will be made before long - 3 from Paris, 4 from Norway - to include Paris and Norway town managers as voting members (some discussion);
*Street sweeper purchase - (much, much, much discussion) Not clear what the new - or even the old - sweeper's status is to be....
*Oxford Street is in sorry shape. Everybody agrees. Money will simply have to be spent there.
*New Planning board member - G. Coffren (decision)
*Unfreeze Capital Improvement Accounts - frozen in January, so that if we ran short we wouldn't have spent everything away (discussion - within board members - on understanding all that, and finally a decision);
*Official wording discussion for official ordinance format for official vote in June (decision);
*Who will Town Report be dedicated to this June? [editor's note: Guess this means the paper booklet report, not the computerized scenario in the works pretty soon for Paris' computer savvy minority... ]
*Multiple, varied, and earnest comments from 10 or 11 of the 19 individuals attending:
(1) vandalism and posting of land possibilities in High Street gravel pit; (2) need for allowing an opportunity for citizens to speak in selectboard meetings, including Specially Called Meetings, any time an item affecting the public is on the agenda; (3) need for looking at ways to save the town money, including the sharing of equipment between towns; (4) the need for complete detailed information to be brought to the selectboard by the town manager any time they are expected to vote on an issue.

*As for the executive session w/ town atty. Hole on 4-20-10, Chairman Glover announced that "We are still in negotiations, so we have nothing to report and there is nothing to make a decision on.," and said they expect to hear from Atty. B. Dench later this week. The board will meet and discuss at a special meeting or at the next regular meeting 5-10-10. "This board... asked for an update on a settlement which we received and heard at the last special meeting with Geoff [3-18-10] and essentially counter-offered"[editor's note: It is not clear when a counter-offer was made, and what "essentially" means. A formal, written counter offer, one would expect, would elicit some response other than nothing from the side with the complaint. It is also not clear whether a back and forth conversation is happening at all. And if that's true, where is the breakdown?]

On Monday the 26th

Monday 4-26-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at 7 PM. Please call the town office for the location of the meeting. The agenda is posted here.

The item of "Selectmen's comments," is now a consistent feature listed at the end of each agenda, and evidently covers most anything - somewhere in the vicinity between controversial, random, and currently relevant.

Curiously missing, unless it may have fallen into that last item, is any item listed relevant to Town Atty. Hole's attendance at a special selectboard meeting Tuesday 4-20-10, that 2 1/2 hour, $625 visit, $250 of which turned out to be not the executive session to discuss with the board the Jackson 80B Complaint..

[editor's note: see the previous posting, for 4-22-10, The real question waiting to be answered.]

Just before the start of the executive session Tuesday, Ch. Glover said to the tiny public audience in attendance that any results would be made known to a larger audience in attendance at Monday's regular board meeting; that any decision would be made in public at that time.

If there is no mention of the law suit Monday night (which, as was noted in the press a few weeks ago, had an extension until April 20 to settle out of court, thus the meeting with Atty. Hole), would we assume there is nothing to report? That nothing was discussed or accomplished and nothing is happening, and nothing is going to happen and...if everyone will just stop asking, the whole business will evaporate and it will be as if 600 people were never deeply outraged on June 22 and why don't we just forget this whole last 10 months and pretend this is about somebody else?

We the people get the attorney-client privilege standard, and we also get the strategy that the selectboard could choose, for a period of time, not to disclose certain things in a legally sensitive situation. We have become quite educated in what we cannot be told.

But what our elected officials do not seem to get is that we - many more of us than they are hoping - do not forget. There is not a rug massive enough to sweep this under. Tell us something. This is our town, too. How this is resolved will affect all of us, money aside.

And rest assured that, just as at the federal and state level, our local politicians will need to disclose their voting record and reasons for doing so at some point. Or their lack of doing so, if, in this case, no decision is made and things just fall through everybody's fingers. Government by default.

The real question waiting to be answered

This Monday 4-26-10 at 7 pm Paris selectboard will meet. Town office? Fire station? Better call to verify. For several months now, selectboard meetings have been held at the fire station, even though the audiences have become smaller and smaller since March; meetings have been long and uneventful.

One would almost think it's safe to go back in the water....no worries, no controversy, no crisis to bring the numbers out to watch.

Like the still calm sheen of the lake surface. Not a ripple...anywhere... it would seem....

A new board, a different mix of people, a changing of the guard that involves learning the ropes for some, and relearning the ropes, for others. A time of adjusting and re-adjusting how one feels about what people think; of discovering who to trust and who to question.

This adjustment period also brings out the naysayers - who want to capitalize on finally having someone to harangue; the hopeful - who are easily disillusioned by perceived missteps; and individuals who have their own agenda, and wish to scout out a source to get them what they want.

But the waters will roll and ripple, and eventually settle down, and the matter of getting this town going again must prevail. Or else the struggle of the last 10 months will have taught us nothing.

At Monday's meeting, a question waiting to be answered might be:

When the hue and cry is how bare the coffers of Paris are about to be any minute, what do you have to tell us to justify bringing town Atty. Hole up from Portland last Tuesday for 2 1/2 hours, or longer, at $250 an hour, to sit through a 60 minute discussion - plus or minus - that Chairman Glover finally agreed to rearrange the schedule for if it only lasted 15 minutes?
[editor's note: the executive session was originally scheduled first (so Atty. Hole could leave and the meeting continue without him), the revisited item, the purchase of a sidewalk sweeper, second.]

The use of Atty. Hole's time covered more than the executive session. His expensive time was extended by listening to - and ultimately volunteering an opinion on - the heated discussion of whether proper procedure had been followed in having a prior item on an earlier selectboard agenda reopened. Fingers were pointed angrily; and outside, on the streets of Paris, fingers continued - and still continue - to point, and tongues wagged - and continue to wag - passing on misinformed rumors.

Was this particular extra $250 well spent? Useful to the citizens of Paris? (OK if useful; but, not OK if things simply escalated because of a preplanned, not-totally-factual presentation that was based on misinformation and misinterpretation. )

The integrity of the entire board was impugned by this misinformation. It is good to question; to ask for clarity. It is pointless and unprofessional to attack based only on hearsay and innuendo.

The tiny segment of voters present noticed.

Atty. Hole was brought up to consider, with our 4 selectmen, any possible settlement out of court for the Jackson Rule 80 B appeal. Or not.

This is what we are really waiting to hear about Monday night.

[edtior's note: possibly NPCTV may rebroadast the segment of Tuesday's session on the item of the sweeper if they can find a spot before Monday. The broadcast time will be posted here if so.]

The task before the current selectboard....

...was to meet with Town Atty. Geoff Hole tonight and consider an offer for settlement out of court for an appeal on behalf of former town manager Sharon Jackson. The meeting, with all 4 selectpersons, took place in executive session, 1 1/2 hours worth.

There was a small representation of the public present at the adjournment, but there was no further word to the public at this time. Ch. Glover had already said, before the start of the executive session, that any decision would be made official the following Monday, April 26, when the selectboard would vote in public at their regularly scheduled meeting.

_________________________________________________

The taking of another look

The other item on tonight's agenda was reopening the discussion on the need for replacing Paris' Street Sweeper. [editor's note: the vote 4-12 on the item was a 2-2- vote, and resulted in the item not being replaced.]

Before the discussion on the sweeper could begin, there was strong concern expressed in one quarter about there having been collusion, instigated by board Member A (who asked for the item to be reconsidered).

Member A had called board Member B (who had made the original motion for the vote at the last meeting) and asked Member B's agreement in having the item revisited. The strong concern expressed was that something had been clandestinely pre-arranged, and hadn't this town had enough of that in the last months; that one board member should not talk to another board member at anytime other than a public board meeting. *See editor's note below.

Turns out that Member A was following procedure as recommended by the board chairman - and it was indeed the correct procedure. There was no pitch made, or vote prearranged; only the agreement to revisit the topic, in order to gather further information.

Further information from Paris Highway Forman Danforth, as well as Town Mgr. Tarr, brought out more details reinforcing the request behind the revisiting - that there was indeed a health hazard to the operator of the current machine because of the poor condition of the machine. The new vote tonight was 3-1 to replace the machine, using FEMA money in the highway department's budget that was designated a couple of years ago for roads.

*[editor's note: Atty. Hole happened to be present during all of the above discussion, and interjected that "Two board members may talk; 3 cannot talk and form a consensus." He went on to point out that ethics, as well, are a matter to be considered in all interactions between board members; transparency is more than just legality.

This town has had it's own recent education on the issue of clandestine activity.

Case in point: Two selectmen sitting in a local restaurant having lunch with a guy who in a few days turns up as the new interim town manager in a town where the regular town manager has just been summarily fired = suspiciously like collusion;

Seems pretty clear that

Case in point #2: One select person calling another select person to see if the other thought an item could go on the agenda = no collusion.]

Unfinished

The previous posting (below) touched on endings and beginnings, in Paris, for good or for bad. If you haven't read it, take time to - it is a good little thought-provoker.

Two items are listed as "unfinished": the budget process, and the 80-B Appeal.

Budget Process: There is always an opportunity, up until an actual vote is taken at the annual town meeting in June, to add, subtract, or discuss the budget - or any budget item - even if approved by the selectmen to date. Even on the date of the vote, up until that vote, an item can be discussed and an amendment created; and that amendment would also go to a vote.

So. Regarding the 2010-11 budget that was approved by the selectmen 4-12-10: on the agenda of the special selectmen's meeting to be held tomorrow 4-20-10, besides the executive session that was the reason for the meeting in the first place, there will be at least one additional item. There will be another look taken at the concern of Paris Highway Dept. re. their street sweeper [the machine that vacuums up all the winter's dirt and sand.]

The request to take another look at the item - a new street sweeper - did not come from the Highway Dept.; it came from a select board member who wanted to have a continued discussion on the item to explore matters more thoroughly. The 4-12-10, 2-2 vote resulted in no new sweeper.

This process of taking another look is in keeping with the bylaws of the board and the budget process. Voters having an interest about the need or cost for such an item - or not - (approximately $48,000, money out of the existing budget), are encouraged to attend Tuesday's meeting at the town office that begins at 5:30 PM. Be aware that any item for discussion would take place after the executive session.

The 80-B Appeal: The reason our selectboard will be meeting with town attorney Geoffrey Hole at this particular point and time will be, finally, once and for all, to consider an offer for an out of court settlement of an appeal on behalf of former Paris Town Manager Sharon Jackson - who was fired 2 days short of 10 months ago in a vengeful act that left the town stunned.

Hundreds of hours of citizen battles to recover lost ground, two recalled selectmen, an interim town manager of questionable competence, a full-time replacement town manager, 3 settlement offers (one not acknowledged, one turned down), and many, many black moments later; the time has come for this community to fish or cut bait.

This site has posted item after item, all the way back to July 2009, on the width and breadth of effect on the town of Paris from the events of June 22, 2009. The citizens and voters of this town have made their thoughts known time after time: from the 611 who published a letter in the papers July 9, to the energy generated in the efforts to push through the recall ordinance, and its final outcome in the February recall elections.

The task before the current selectboard is to weigh the facts, the figures, and the responsibilities. It is not enough just to bring this sorry episode in Paris' history to an end, however; the outcome of this negotiation [this will be the last chance] must allow all parties involved to live with the decisions they have made; to be able to move on to the next thing - not being afraid, hesitant, unable, or unwilling to look back.

Endings and Beginnings

Things are changing in the landscape - it's greener, brighter, softer looking. Winter has officially ended and spring has actually begun and is on track.

The ending of a thing, the beginning of the next thing that either replaces or continues. So, too, for Paris. For good or for bad.

Norway Paris Solid Waste - a topic of so much conflict and ill feelings and concerns about management. The existing board of directors dissolved; questions for how best to facilitate a need that must be met, somehow.

An ending.

Wednesday the 14th Norway and Paris selectboards met together, with the respective town managers. To guarantee no lapse in serving the community, a board of directors will be reconstituted for NPSW, for now; options and ideas will be considered and studied for the future.

A beginning.

The Jackson Rule 80-B Appeal - stemming from a situation that had no good beginning, and so far has hardly even a middle; a sad gathering of mostly endings, that feel, in general, totally incomplete.

Almost no one has heard - or looked at - a complete story from start to finish. The 80-B Appeal is only part of the story. There is the "why?" of it; and there is the "who-is-this-person-anyway?" of it.

This coming Tuesday, April 20, in an executive session at the Paris Town Office, the Paris selectboard will meet with Paris Town Atty. Geoff Hole to discuss the most recent offer for settlement out of court. [Editor's note: This will be the 3rd offer. One came , by phone, in October and was not passed on. Another came in December and was rejected 3-2 by selectboard. This same offer was discussed again by the current selectboard, in March, and not accepted as offered. A final offer for settlement will come on the 20th.]

This Tuesday has the potential for at least a loosely acceptable middle and end, to a festering situation of madness and vendetta that erupted in June 2009, and didn't stop then.

Unfinished. Needing an established beginning - also a middle.

The Paris Town Budget Process - a recurring process that becomes solid ground in June at Town Meeting. The budget committee's job was to consider and approve the figures brought to them by the town manager, whose figures come, by and large, from the various department heads and are then fit into the manager's framework. Their hearing was April 8. This work in progress was passed on to the selectboard, and was approved April 12..

Some new faces in the process this time, and though everyone worked diligently, the firm guidance and experience of former chair Forrie Everett (recently resigned and off to Florida) was missed.

Unfinished. The ending - or official continuance - comes in June when Paris citizens vote on the carefully prepared budget for the following year.

A Reminder - and Wondering....

There will be a Paris Selectboard meeting tomorrow, Monday 4-12-10 at 7 pm. A fairly long agenda, many items merely perfunctory, one or two somewhat more lengthy.

A puzzling item, however. Since March 11, there has been an addition at - or after - the end of the agendas, "Selectmen Requests." Not clear why this needs to be noted separately. Our elected officials need separate space on the agenda? Different attention comes thereby?

There is, no doubt, a logical explanation.

But one cannot help but wonder why there would be a request for a workshop, following the adjournment of the meeting. Surely our selectboard - or whoever puts together this agenda - knows that all meetings and transactions are public - unless there is a legal issue to be discussed, in private, with our town attorney present.

Goals and objectives are listed as the topic for the workshop. It is a good and reasonable thing for our new selectboard to figure out how they should function and what some upcoming issues might be. And an equally good thing for Paris citizens to be aware of such deliberations. Also legally accurate.

There have been smatterings of thoughts mentioned in various places about a time of visioning and planning ahead on a wide canvas for Paris.

If this workshop session turns out to be more than just a look at how the selectboard works, and goes on to consider how the town itself could work, this might be a good thing... but would it be a good thing now?

Now, when this town is still waiting to see if the selectboard is trustworthy this time around? Now, when we are waiting to see if this management is capable? Now, when we are waiting to see if we have all the betrayed, broken, thrown away pieces retrieved and repaired?

Surely our elected officials know the time is not right for this kind of action...for any looking way down the road before we get ourselves squared away? Of course. Of course they do. They would be in touch with what people are thinking. Of course they would.

This particular workshop appears to be scheduled right after the adjournment of Monday night's meeting. But, if he or she chooses, any citizen can stay and watch? Right?

Agenda for 4-12-10

Monday April 12 Paris Selectmen will meet at 7 pm at Paris Fire Station. Agenda posted here.

Figures and Thoughts

Tonight Paris' Budget Committee held a public hearing at the end of their several week preparation process for the town's annual budget. A verbal summary [see Sun Journal 4-7-10 "Hearing set for Paris budget"] was presented by Town Manager Phil Tarr, followed by additional remarks by committee chair Vic Hodgkins. The actual budget now goes on to the selectboard, where it will be formally approved and then printed in the annual report for the voters in June. Possibly a copy of the budget might be available before that; a call to the town office would confirm that.

The design of much of the budget committee's work is quite black and white: the overseeing of a compilation of budget figures put together by the town manager to operate the town for another year. It is preceeded and facilitated by several weeks of gathering and laying out information by the financial officer and municipal department heads; typing and retyping by staff, and then followed by several more weeks of discussion and questions by the committee.

Most of us as tax payers can only tread water in the manner of keeping up. We can only be trusting - and grateful.

The public audience tonight was tiny - probably to be expected since the hearing was simply perfunctory.

But: some un-black-and-white comments managed to emerge.

Despite the fact that it is not in the job description of the budget committee's role, after the financial presentation, the topic of The Big Picture suddenly materialized in the room. Not the time, you sticklers for detail say? OK....so when?

The question came in the context of ever increasing expenses, with a limited number of property owners paying the bill out of income that cannot be predicted to rise at the same rate as those expenses.

For example, this year's budget is 2.6% higher than last year's, and this upward trend will most likely continue. Selectman Skip Herrick estimated that as few as 50% of the people in town pay the taxes for the town. Is this a dependable source for the long run?

After pointing out that, over the last 10 years, budgets - and taxes - have increased 55%, and adding his concern about the years ahead, Selectman Ted Kurtz asked a thought-provoking question : "My question is directed toward, not the expense side, but the supply side; where the money's coming from. I'm just interested in to what extent the budget committee's work includes an assessment of that factor."

If assessing the source of the income to be budgeted is not in the purview of this committee, in whose purview is it? And when would such a discussion take place? A whole lot of Paris tax payers would want to be part of that discussion.

Update NPSW

The joint meeting of the selectboards of Norway and Paris -referred to in the posting below under In the very near future - will be held Wednesday, April 14, 7pm at the Norway town office.

Life Without the Flames of Crisis

In the sleepy, peaceful town of Paris, on a bright and sunny spring day, who would have a care?

Well it was indeed a fine spring day on Sunday, but there are still plenty of folks in this town who are anything but sleepy. We have learned the hard way, that, always, there need to be some who remain watchful. In fact, the more who watch, the better.

Coming up this week
Thursday 4-8-10, 7PM, the budget committee presents their work product to the public at an open hearing on the budget that will go before voters at the annual town meeting in June. (location? perhaps the town office? call to be sure.)

Imminently
A response to the Jackson Rule 8O B Complaint.

In the very near future
A joint response by selectboards from Norway and Paris to the future of Norway Paris Solid Waste. A meeting has been called for, and will be scheduled shortly. The court action last Thursday was one item dealt with; but solid waste disposal is a practical matter for all people in any town, and it doesn't deserve to be a political football.

So a firm, responsible, practical solution must be put in place.

Prospective candidates
Any Paris resident wishing to apply for any of the following vacancies that will appear on the ballot in June 2010 need to return their properly signed petitions to the town office by April 26:

*A 3 year term on Paris Utility District
*A term on SAD 17 school board
*Two 3 year term positions on Paris town selectboard.

Have you taken time to call and remind anyone about your thoughts on any of the items listed above?

In Court Today

On the docket today at Oxford County Superior Court was a call to render a decision on 2 motions:

(1) For the plaintiffs, a preliminary injunction [to temporarily stop the clock, to undo what had been put in place] as a first step in reversing the recent decision of the towns of Norway and Paris regarding the operation of the appointed board of directors of Norway Paris Solid Waste;

(2) For the defendants, a request to dismiss the entire case on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing to appeal the towns' actions.
[see editor's note below re. "standing" ]

Atty. D. Hanley represented 2 individuals, Al Atkinson and Bruce Hanson, who are appealing the actions of Norway and Paris in rescinding the individuals' appointments, and those of 3 others, as directors on the board of Norway Paris Solid Waste.

Atty. R. Crawford represented Norway and Paris, the members of the corporation NPSW.

[editor's note - "standing":
In order for a party to establish "standing" before the court, that party would have had to go farther than merely complain and/or threaten loudly and often. The party would have to have taken formal steps to register complaints at appropriate points (e.g., in a publicized hearing on the topic). If these steps were not taken at the appropriate time, the party has no "standing" to take those steps later.]

In the court proceedings today, the judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The judge went on to say he would take under advisement [gather more information on] the arguments on both sides, about whether to dismiss the case entirely.