...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.
