...the 10 or so voters of Paris, along with the selectboard, town manager, finance officer, and 3 members of the press. Monday night's selectboard carried out the agenda posted Friday evening, with some interesting extensions.
Points to consider:
*Town manager's request for medical leave. Currently out of sick leave, advance sick leave was granted the manager with a vote of 3-1. Should one assume there will be similar compassion when others on the town payroll need assistance?
*Fire Department. No question that protection by qualified personnel is a high priority. The entire board was in accord on this topic. Chief Frost is looking everywhere for financial support. He is being wise and careful, however, about moving too fast and getting on a track that moves too fast to be well planned. Go chief Frost!
* Warrant for the June 12th annual town meeting. More complicated.
There are 33 items on the warrant. And then there was the 34th item of when a newly elected town official actually takes office.
[editor's note: The Paris Reporter is not a legal entity, nor does it have a stake in the outcome of what has become a personal debate for many on the issue - not to mention that this specific point is part of the current litigation in the Rule 80B complaint, Jackson vs. the Town of Paris.]
There is state law that prescribes when a newly elected official takes office: 30-A MRSA Sec.2526.
There is also Article 7 in the Town of Paris annual town meeting warrant of June 1999 that speaks to that same issue. Paris voters in 1999 were cognizant of the fact the budget calendar is July 1 - June 30; they chose to vote the term of office for officials to be concurrent with the budget year. And, according to the second half of 30-A MRSA 2526, until the legislative body of the town changes that decision, the actual date voted in 1999 for a newly elected official to take office stands.
Five years after that 1999 vote, Paris voters unofficially changed the date officials took office, making the date concurrent with the annual town meeting just after the election in June. (See link below.)
There is strong feeling among certain individuals that the last few years (2005 - 2009) of "past practice" - starting official terms at the date of town meeting - should set the date an elected official takes office, despite the 1999 vote.
There is equally strong feeling among others that there was a legal vote - that can only be changed by the legislative body - to follow the wording of the vote, and "start July 1."
Tonight's comments on the board ran from:
"We should not cherry pick [what rules we follow]...." to "The 1999 ordinance is null and void...."
[editor's note: the 1999 warrant article was simply a procedural question to the voters. Not an ordinance. However, it carries the weight of law.]
One member of the current Paris selectboard is the former attorney for the town of Paris. While one can not easily shed one's hat of a former life, it is a complex and highly delicate matter for that individual to be aware of the hat he was wearing when elected, and avoid any appearance of prejudicial bias. Paris pays a separate attorney to advise this town, its employees, and its selectboard.
The issue of term of office is germane to the current lawsuit; but it is also, as Chairman Glover pointed out, an issue we need to settle, for the short term, for our upcoming June election. It is appropriate that a decision be made for practical purposes, aside from any legal issues.
There was no actual vote on the question of the terms for officials elected in the June 2010 election. However, after discussion, with 3 board members wishing to keep the term at the "past practice" of 2005-2009, and one member adhering to the intent of the original vote and practice of 1999-2004, it was the wish of the board that the term for newly elected officials would begin their term of office at the annual town meeting right after the June election.
However, the legal issues are also still relevant. Check this link to TPR's July 24, 2009 posting. The article itself is about the current lawsuit, but also includes: (1) the June 1999 Article 7 of the annual town meeting warrant; (2) 6-21-05 letter from Bruce Hanson to the town of Paris re. his term of office as selectman; (3) 6-27-05 letter from the law firm of Kurtz & Perry to the Town of Paris re. Hanson's letter; (4)30-A MRSA 2526.
And one more thing:
"I'd like to act as the citizens want; people want 5 people on the board."
"The people of the Town of Paris want...."
"The people of Paris want us to...."
This politician-speak can stop any time. Is there a document with signatures out there somewhere saying there is agreement on some certain point? How do they know what we think? Has anyone seen any of our selectmen tramping up and down the streets with a clipboard recently?
It's OK if you [select board members]say you think something is a good idea. It's even better if you say you are going to ask us what we think. But it is just not OK to say you know what we think just to make your point sound better.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Monday next
Paris selectboard will meet this coming Monday, May 24, at 7 pm in the town office.
Agenda linked here. A few items look comment-worthy.....
Agenda linked here. A few items look comment-worthy.....
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Ballots ready
The June 8th referendum has several ballots, all available now for absentee voting:
(1) Party primary election ballots for state and county offices;
(2) Five state referendum questions;
(3) One Oxford County referendum question;
(4) Annual Town Meeting Ballot for Paris.
Voting is always necessary, even if a candidate is uncontested - while not conveying a mandate, it does say we approve.
(1) Party primary election ballots for state and county offices;
(2) Five state referendum questions;
(3) One Oxford County referendum question;
(4) Annual Town Meeting Ballot for Paris.
Voting is always necessary, even if a candidate is uncontested - while not conveying a mandate, it does say we approve.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Keep asking
The special selectboard meeting cum lawyer Thursday 5-13-10 was the latest municipal machine activity. One waits for the next thing...explanations, details, a developmental continuance, perhaps. But, in lieu of such, one is left with only the obvious: more questions.
What was the topic, again? Coming up with a coherent plan for dealing with a rather major lawsuit? One poised to split the town... Looking for a way to head off temper tantrums from an individual board member who is struggling to get the upper hand? Finding a way to thwart any real responsibility for having to face a bad situation gone worse because of action long overdue?
If there are questions to be asked about a lawsuit, what prohibited them from being asked back when things were too hard and too unmanageable and too threatening? Because now, the questions have become irrelevant and unanswerable. The questions are no longer how can we right the wrong, or how can we manage the wrong, or even how do we survive the wrong?
The question now has been dehumanized to the point of how do we cover up the wrong, pay off any individual bleating about being wronged, and get back to the "to-do list" of 4 individuals poised to run this town? Are we to understand, then, that this town is to be about things -dollars, items; not people? Not about principle, values, things fought for by more voters than have ever fought for things in this town for a long time? Is that the message for voters?
While we're asking, lets throw out a question about the local election coming up 3 weeks from tomorrow (June 8). Three Weeks. Any campaigning going on? Two selectboard seats open; a seat on PUD, and a school board seat. Have we regressed, here? This is the town who fought through 5 referendums in 5 months; individuals - and items - on ballots that threatened to change the way Paris operates. Are these folks running for office thinking people don't know the score?
Do we have individuals running for office now who think voters don't know that an individual running unopposed does not have a mandate? Do the individuals themselves know that? This is not Paris of 5 years ago. This is now. Voters are no longer keen on tantrums and posturing, or empty words with empty smiles and nice teeth.
Questions. With no real accomplishments, there is no real information (lest someone thinks words are going to do the trick...).
Ask. Ask these questions. The Paris Reporter will.
What was the topic, again? Coming up with a coherent plan for dealing with a rather major lawsuit? One poised to split the town... Looking for a way to head off temper tantrums from an individual board member who is struggling to get the upper hand? Finding a way to thwart any real responsibility for having to face a bad situation gone worse because of action long overdue?
If there are questions to be asked about a lawsuit, what prohibited them from being asked back when things were too hard and too unmanageable and too threatening? Because now, the questions have become irrelevant and unanswerable. The questions are no longer how can we right the wrong, or how can we manage the wrong, or even how do we survive the wrong?
The question now has been dehumanized to the point of how do we cover up the wrong, pay off any individual bleating about being wronged, and get back to the "to-do list" of 4 individuals poised to run this town? Are we to understand, then, that this town is to be about things -dollars, items; not people? Not about principle, values, things fought for by more voters than have ever fought for things in this town for a long time? Is that the message for voters?
While we're asking, lets throw out a question about the local election coming up 3 weeks from tomorrow (June 8). Three Weeks. Any campaigning going on? Two selectboard seats open; a seat on PUD, and a school board seat. Have we regressed, here? This is the town who fought through 5 referendums in 5 months; individuals - and items - on ballots that threatened to change the way Paris operates. Are these folks running for office thinking people don't know the score?
Do we have individuals running for office now who think voters don't know that an individual running unopposed does not have a mandate? Do the individuals themselves know that? This is not Paris of 5 years ago. This is now. Voters are no longer keen on tantrums and posturing, or empty words with empty smiles and nice teeth.
Questions. With no real accomplishments, there is no real information (lest someone thinks words are going to do the trick...).
Ask. Ask these questions. The Paris Reporter will.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday's meeting, continued
The actual agenda items were few; as the previous post mentioned, the discussions themselves took the time.
The item of the FEMA grant for Paris Fire Department has been well covered in the Sun Journal "Paris Selectmen Approve Fire Tanker", 5-11-10. A safely equipped and well-manned fire department, as well as the demands and cost for such, continue to be a priority concern for all Paris citizens. Last night's 35-minute-plus discussion - including board members, Chief Brad Frost, and citizens - was no exception.
Other issues, not on the agenda... that emerged:
*Board of Selectmen Priority List
This is the product of the April 12 selectmen's workshop - held after the regular board meeting that night - 10 items the four agreed to include on a list of things for the town to get on a to-do list, and then to prioritize. Good ideas, by and large. Two more ideas were added during the second after-meeting session tonight.
During citizen comments several citizens expressed an interest in having additional citizen input, as well, in such an endeavor. While the workshop structure is just for selectmen to talk together, citizens were allowed to listen.
It is to be hoped that the fine line between trying to be inclusive and having endless debate, on the one hand, and "we know what's best for you," on the other, can be navigated. While it is realistic and valuable for a board to have their own work time, uninterrupted, this town has a history of people sometimes feeling their frustrations were ignored and that resulting dilemma getting way out of hand.
*Sensitive Information
There was the matter of how information, some of it sensitive, is passed along from town Atty. Hole to the individual selectmen in the current lawsuit of former town mgr. S. Jackson.
It was decided that any emails from his office would continue to be fielded through the town office. It is unfortunate that emails - that are all public information - and /or faxes are used, when US mail would be more secure, although Town Mgr. Tarr said he didn't believe Atty. Hole would be likely to send sensitive information via email. There was no discussion of the protocol for phone calls.
Many people will surely do their best. However, during the tenure of another board not so long ago, some legal information somehow did not make it to the intended parties. Sometimes legal information cannot help but be in one party's interest and not in another's.... In the case of the specific information referred to above "during the tenure of another board," that information could have been instrumental in preventing the magnitude of what this town currently faces.
Any process for handling the transmission of sensitive material - for this lawsuit or anything else in the course of transacting this town's business - would usually, at the direction of the entire board, be via the town manager. Town Mgr. Tarr requested instructions for this matter last night.
There would most certainly not be a role for any private counseling by any other individual, no matter how extensive that individual's background might be. We have a paid attorney, and access to MMA resources; that is the expected route for our legal advice. This town has had enough of individuals acting on behalf of when that really meant in spite of.
*Special Selectboard Meeting
On Thursday 5-13-10 at 5 pm, this selectboard will meet with Atty. Hole to discuss the upcoming mediation process in the Jackson 80B Complaint.
The meeting, Ch. Glover said, will include only the one item, and, though the public may attend, will be held primarily in executive session.
Although The Paris Reporter vigorously supports questioning just about everything, it is important to point out that if this session is for our selectboard to learn about the protocol for the up-coming mediation process, then any public time taken up with questions should be used sparingly.
Any questions asked to gain information that the public might be entitled to - during the public time just prior to the executive session - can easily be done, if necessary, without grandstanding or posturing on the part of any individual. Then the executive session can be devoted to business. [Unlike the April 20 meeting with the lawyer that turned into a double expense because other items were deposited on the agenda before an executive session and Atty. Hole had to sit there and wait; and be paid.]
Because, #1, we are paying Atty. Hole for every minute of his time, and there is hue and cry a-plenty about the use of tax payers' money; and, #2, this town is in serious need of concrete information from the informed parties actively involved in handling this case, and our elected officials need to ask for and listen to directions from the lawyer this town hired to handle this case.
The item of the FEMA grant for Paris Fire Department has been well covered in the Sun Journal "Paris Selectmen Approve Fire Tanker", 5-11-10. A safely equipped and well-manned fire department, as well as the demands and cost for such, continue to be a priority concern for all Paris citizens. Last night's 35-minute-plus discussion - including board members, Chief Brad Frost, and citizens - was no exception.
Other issues, not on the agenda... that emerged:
*Board of Selectmen Priority List
This is the product of the April 12 selectmen's workshop - held after the regular board meeting that night - 10 items the four agreed to include on a list of things for the town to get on a to-do list, and then to prioritize. Good ideas, by and large. Two more ideas were added during the second after-meeting session tonight.
During citizen comments several citizens expressed an interest in having additional citizen input, as well, in such an endeavor. While the workshop structure is just for selectmen to talk together, citizens were allowed to listen.
It is to be hoped that the fine line between trying to be inclusive and having endless debate, on the one hand, and "we know what's best for you," on the other, can be navigated. While it is realistic and valuable for a board to have their own work time, uninterrupted, this town has a history of people sometimes feeling their frustrations were ignored and that resulting dilemma getting way out of hand.
*Sensitive Information
There was the matter of how information, some of it sensitive, is passed along from town Atty. Hole to the individual selectmen in the current lawsuit of former town mgr. S. Jackson.
It was decided that any emails from his office would continue to be fielded through the town office. It is unfortunate that emails - that are all public information - and /or faxes are used, when US mail would be more secure, although Town Mgr. Tarr said he didn't believe Atty. Hole would be likely to send sensitive information via email. There was no discussion of the protocol for phone calls.
Many people will surely do their best. However, during the tenure of another board not so long ago, some legal information somehow did not make it to the intended parties. Sometimes legal information cannot help but be in one party's interest and not in another's.... In the case of the specific information referred to above "during the tenure of another board," that information could have been instrumental in preventing the magnitude of what this town currently faces.
Any process for handling the transmission of sensitive material - for this lawsuit or anything else in the course of transacting this town's business - would usually, at the direction of the entire board, be via the town manager. Town Mgr. Tarr requested instructions for this matter last night.
There would most certainly not be a role for any private counseling by any other individual, no matter how extensive that individual's background might be. We have a paid attorney, and access to MMA resources; that is the expected route for our legal advice. This town has had enough of individuals acting on behalf of when that really meant in spite of.
*Special Selectboard Meeting
On Thursday 5-13-10 at 5 pm, this selectboard will meet with Atty. Hole to discuss the upcoming mediation process in the Jackson 80B Complaint.
The meeting, Ch. Glover said, will include only the one item, and, though the public may attend, will be held primarily in executive session.
Although The Paris Reporter vigorously supports questioning just about everything, it is important to point out that if this session is for our selectboard to learn about the protocol for the up-coming mediation process, then any public time taken up with questions should be used sparingly.
Any questions asked to gain information that the public might be entitled to - during the public time just prior to the executive session - can easily be done, if necessary, without grandstanding or posturing on the part of any individual. Then the executive session can be devoted to business. [Unlike the April 20 meeting with the lawyer that turned into a double expense because other items were deposited on the agenda before an executive session and Atty. Hole had to sit there and wait; and be paid.]
Because, #1, we are paying Atty. Hole for every minute of his time, and there is hue and cry a-plenty about the use of tax payers' money; and, #2, this town is in serious need of concrete information from the informed parties actively involved in handling this case, and our elected officials need to ask for and listen to directions from the lawyer this town hired to handle this case.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Rebuilding
9:30 pm. Monday.
Selectboard met tonight. Short agenda....long meeting. Citizens had thoughts, and the chairman tried to listen when it came time that the citizens could speak.
And it went on too long. About 26 citizens attended, and 2 reporters. By 9 o'clock about 10 people were left. Those who left were tired and tired out. They felt not necessary.
This town has been in crisis for months and months. Now we have an opportunity to be out of crisis. We have elected individuals who are trying to make a difference in this town. They haven't learned that the voters are their best support. Just like we voters haven't become convinced that our elected officials and those they have hired are our best support.
We are all in evolution. We question motives and we question competence and we question private agendas and we question allegiance.
We are all going to make mistakes. We have not yet learned how to listen to each other.
Our transition board has individuals who seem determined to give this town their best; but what we have not discovered from each other is how we find what is best in each other. We the voters, the ones who pay the salary, the pocket cash, and the very reason they exist; and they, the ones who do on our behalf, who have their hands on the wheel of this great bus that is careening down the highway.
This is a small town. We are all of a fabric. It is dangerous to think otherwise. There are going to be choices.
Selectboard met tonight. Short agenda....long meeting. Citizens had thoughts, and the chairman tried to listen when it came time that the citizens could speak.
And it went on too long. About 26 citizens attended, and 2 reporters. By 9 o'clock about 10 people were left. Those who left were tired and tired out. They felt not necessary.
This town has been in crisis for months and months. Now we have an opportunity to be out of crisis. We have elected individuals who are trying to make a difference in this town. They haven't learned that the voters are their best support. Just like we voters haven't become convinced that our elected officials and those they have hired are our best support.
We are all in evolution. We question motives and we question competence and we question private agendas and we question allegiance.
We are all going to make mistakes. We have not yet learned how to listen to each other.
Our transition board has individuals who seem determined to give this town their best; but what we have not discovered from each other is how we find what is best in each other. We the voters, the ones who pay the salary, the pocket cash, and the very reason they exist; and they, the ones who do on our behalf, who have their hands on the wheel of this great bus that is careening down the highway.
This is a small town. We are all of a fabric. It is dangerous to think otherwise. There are going to be choices.
Selectboard meeting 5-10-2010
Paris' selectboard meets 5-10-2010 at the town office, 7:00 p.m. Agenda here.
Please come to watch, listen and participate.
Please come to watch, listen and participate.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Question, always question...
There is no denying that money is tight. It is ludicrous to believe people don't understand that. Better - and thorough - planning is always important to keep individuals, families, and towns fiscally sound. Questions should always be asked about spending.
In fact, questions should be asked about most everything.
Mediation - in this current lawsuit that makes everybody's jaw tighten: will the particular mediator selected work for free? Don't the lawyers who accompany whoever goes into the mediation session(s) have to be paid? Is this whole mediation process cost-free, just to help parties who aren't able to negotiate on their own? Do you think?
And if mediation doesn't work...and court comes anyway, will that come at a reduced rate because Paris really didn't mean to get this far down the road with such bad planning?
And what was wrong with our (Paris' selectboard on the town's behalf) "negotiating" that we ended up with mediation - one tiny step away from the court room....? Were the 2 meetings (March 16th and April 20) with the lawyer actually part of a negotiation process with the other party? Or just information exchanging and loud proclamations within the board, with our paid lawyer as audience?
Why couldn't this board negotiate? Do we have a whole board-full of people who are digging in their heels, or just a minority?
Do we have board members who think this is only about money? If so, why haven't other options been looked at that might have stopped this escalating scenario?
Are there actually individuals on our selectboard that believe this lawsuit is only about money? Are there really individuals on our board who are willing to say, right out loud, to the citizens of this town, as well as to the other party:
"There was no wrong done on June 22, 2009. I, an elected official of the town of Paris, take no responsibility for not having fought as hard as perhaps I could have. The citizens in this town have nothing to complain about. We [the speakers] are blameless. This is all your fault [speaking to the other party] for getting yourself fired and putting us now in this awkward position."
In fact, questions should be asked about most everything.
Mediation - in this current lawsuit that makes everybody's jaw tighten: will the particular mediator selected work for free? Don't the lawyers who accompany whoever goes into the mediation session(s) have to be paid? Is this whole mediation process cost-free, just to help parties who aren't able to negotiate on their own? Do you think?
And if mediation doesn't work...and court comes anyway, will that come at a reduced rate because Paris really didn't mean to get this far down the road with such bad planning?
And what was wrong with our (Paris' selectboard on the town's behalf) "negotiating" that we ended up with mediation - one tiny step away from the court room....? Were the 2 meetings (March 16th and April 20) with the lawyer actually part of a negotiation process with the other party? Or just information exchanging and loud proclamations within the board, with our paid lawyer as audience?
Why couldn't this board negotiate? Do we have a whole board-full of people who are digging in their heels, or just a minority?
Do we have board members who think this is only about money? If so, why haven't other options been looked at that might have stopped this escalating scenario?
Are there actually individuals on our selectboard that believe this lawsuit is only about money? Are there really individuals on our board who are willing to say, right out loud, to the citizens of this town, as well as to the other party:
"There was no wrong done on June 22, 2009. I, an elected official of the town of Paris, take no responsibility for not having fought as hard as perhaps I could have. The citizens in this town have nothing to complain about. We [the speakers] are blameless. This is all your fault [speaking to the other party] for getting yourself fired and putting us now in this awkward position."
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Lines have been drawn
..."parties may be too far apart to settle the matter themselves."... (Sun Journal, "Mediator approved for Jackson Lawsuit", 5-05-10).
Yes. So it would seem.
It's all about the cost of things, right? Maybe. Three former Paris selectmen...who are no longer individuals held in the highest of esteem by the voting majority... certainly made the case for that.
"We have to protect the citizens of this town...." (overheard from the front table during the 4-11-10 selectboard meeting). Why, yes.....yes, of course... the citizens of this town certainly don't have any sense of their own, now, do they?
These citizens, at least the voting majority who showed up at the polls, didn't - pretty much all by themselves - slog through the last 10 months, get themselves to the polls 5 times in 5 months, recall 2 selectboard members, save 2 other selectboard members, who, caught in the same bitter trap that caught the former town manager, would otherwise have been removed as well. Not to mention a good portion of these citizens getting themselves out that last time in March to elect 2 new selectboard members.
And this town is not in danger of being divided - again. There is no need, nor has there ever been, any healing required. There is widespread trust in the elected officials representing us on the selectboard. All town employees are feeling very supported. There is high confidence in how our municipal operation is currently being run. There is not a power hungry individual anywhere.
And "....we are in negotiations." (the chairman, 4-11-10).
Because negotiating, all along the way of this whole sorry situation that had to result in a lawsuit - as opposed to heads in the sand and then finally loud saber rattling and pronouncements, when push came to shove - would be the way of wise rulers.
Pick the true statement you like best from the list above.
Yes. So it would seem.
It's all about the cost of things, right? Maybe. Three former Paris selectmen...who are no longer individuals held in the highest of esteem by the voting majority... certainly made the case for that.
"We have to protect the citizens of this town...." (overheard from the front table during the 4-11-10 selectboard meeting). Why, yes.....yes, of course... the citizens of this town certainly don't have any sense of their own, now, do they?
These citizens, at least the voting majority who showed up at the polls, didn't - pretty much all by themselves - slog through the last 10 months, get themselves to the polls 5 times in 5 months, recall 2 selectboard members, save 2 other selectboard members, who, caught in the same bitter trap that caught the former town manager, would otherwise have been removed as well. Not to mention a good portion of these citizens getting themselves out that last time in March to elect 2 new selectboard members.
And this town is not in danger of being divided - again. There is no need, nor has there ever been, any healing required. There is widespread trust in the elected officials representing us on the selectboard. All town employees are feeling very supported. There is high confidence in how our municipal operation is currently being run. There is not a power hungry individual anywhere.
And "....we are in negotiations." (the chairman, 4-11-10).
Because negotiating, all along the way of this whole sorry situation that had to result in a lawsuit - as opposed to heads in the sand and then finally loud saber rattling and pronouncements, when push came to shove - would be the way of wise rulers.
Pick the true statement you like best from the list above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)