It was an interesting...and lengthy meeting Monday evening. The Sun Journal posted a few succinct observations on line early this morning, Tuesday, 6-29-10 - "Chair, vice-chair chosen for Paris board." A lot of business was checked off, people were appointed, accomplishments were noted, points of law were referred to, smiles were exchanged. And there were some comments with merit.
Really, to fully appreciate our municipal machine at work , you need to see it happening. A call to NPCTV this afternoon confirmed that the full 2 hour, 45 minutes and 55 seconds recording of the 6-28-10 meeting will be broadcast on NPCTV at 4 pm today, Tuesday, and again on Sunday, July4, at 6:30.
Unfortunately, there was a glitch in the sound of their recording, and almost the first hour or so had no sound...
The glitch in the video recording is unfortunate, because, during citizen's comments, beginning with Selectboard Member Smart, some thoughtful observations were offered on the accomplishments of former manager Jackson's tenure, as well as some positive comments by other board members on the mediation process itself.
If you're a little pressed for time... just cut to the chase,and, for the piece de resistance, tune in 2 hours and 33 minutes into the broadcast.... No one could have scripted this last section. Oh...wait: actually, someone did. We will not give the plot away. You will simply have to look and see. [editor's note: TPR has not seen the tape to the end at this precise moment of posting - here's hoping the sound is engaged.]
One very good question was heard in Citizen's Comments at the meeting, however, in reference to the settlement agreed on in the mediation last Thursday for Jackson vs the Town of Paris. It would appear that the question was aimed in the general direction of The Ones Who Shall Not Be Named, and Never Blamed - the 3 former elected officials of this town who initiated the untimely and vengeful action that brought crisis, chaos, and hatefulness in good supply to the town of Paris:
"What did all this cost the town of Paris? From beginning to end? Legal fees, double pay for town managers, the whole thing?"
Selectmen and town manager hastened to agree that an accounting would most certainly be forthcoming, to present at a special town meeting on July 26, when the agreed-on settlement figure will be among the warrant articles put before the public.
TPR has already started a list of costs; readers may remember some figures have already been posted on this site. But we will absolutely continue our homework - in case anyone else might forget....
Included on the list of expenses should be: 1.) legal bills for this topic, by month, July 2009 - June 2010, ( possibly longer); 2.) election costs 2-05-10; 2-08-10; 3-03-10; 3.) costs special town meeting 1-07-10; 4.) advertising costs new town mgr(s); 5.) salary interim town mgr.; 6.) total severance pay and benefits former mgr. before mediation; 7.) settlement agreement - meaning back pay and severance pay dating from the recognized date of firing, 10-08-10.
There will surely be more....
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Reminder and Clarification
Reminder:
The town's business, all 23 items of it, will be addressed Monday 6-28-10 at the selectboard's meeting in the town office at 7 PM. Items 3-7 should be...a matter of form. Depending on what else emerges in addition to the words on the agenda [editor's note: linked in the previous 2 postings] there are possibilities of this being a meaty time. Some of us will stay til the bitter end.
Point of Clarification:
Since it does not appear that the Town of Paris has issued a public statement, to date, with results of the mediation session Thursday 6-24-10 that resulted in a settlement agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding on the Jackson vs Town of Paris Rule 80 B Complaint, it would seem that TPR is, to date, the sole media observer.
So, to make the points in TPR's Friday 6-25-10 posting Memorandum of Understanding, crystal clear, with no possibility of innuendoes or grey areas - or in spite of any spin that may emerge at Monday's selectboard meeting:
From TPR's Friday posting, "...the sum agreed on was $32,502.76 - the amount, based on the terms of Jackson's contract, that would have been due to her in back pay and severance, if the calculation is done from 10-08-09, the date when the original termination (6-22-09) was "ratified."
Further explanation:
The town's case against Jackson was led from August 2009 - March 2010... by a complete absence of much of anything at all.
The town's case was, however, led vigorously from March to present time by Selectman Kurtz (followed strenuously by most of the rest of the board), who held strongly that Jackson's case was not based on any legal complaint.
Looking to find a way to retrieve her job, on the basis of a 1999 warrant item voted in the affirmative by Paris voters that stated selectmen elected in Paris' annual election in June would be seated as of July 1, Jackson charged in her July 21, 2009 80 B Complaint that Selectman Ripley, newly elected 6-08-09 and sworn in after the town meeting 6-12-09, was not legally seated on 6-22-09 when he voted, in a 3-2 vote, to fire her.
The relative Maine statue, 30-A MRSA sec.2526, cited repeatedly by Kurtz, but also posted in its entirety several times on TPR, gives no credence to past practice (a term bounced around the board) in choosing the time a newly elected selectman is seated. Rather it allows the legislative body to choose the term. If no choice is made, either by charter or by the town, the only thing the statute sets is the number of selectmen and how long the term is; no statement is made indicating when the term begins or ends.
Connecting the dots:
The Town of Paris' response to Jackson hung on the opinion/belief that selectmen newly elected in the annual June election should be seated right after the annual town meeting; that the decision of the Paris voters in the 1999 Warrant directing that newly elected selectmen be seated on, or after July 1 - was not valid.
Former Selectman Ripley was seated June 22. The Town of Paris' response to Jackson would indicate that Ripley was seated accurately, and that his vote counted in the firing. In fact, the board at that time, apparently wanting to try to make sure the 6-22-09 vote counted, ratified (gave approval for) it on 10-08-09.
The current board has spent many thousands of our dollars on "questions and research" [editor's note: see, for example, TPR posting 6-22-10 Let's talk money]. We can only assume they were heavily invested in their point, and were looking for information to support it.
One can surmise, then, that the reason the figures in the settlement above appear to have been calculated from October 8, 2009, is because that would be the actual date of the firing, i.e., all 3 of the 3-2 vote to fire were legally seated and the vote was valid.
One can also surmise that during the mediation session Thursday, our selectboard must have accepted that the 1999 warrant vote for newly elected Paris selectmen to be seated on July 1 or after, holds. Otherwise, why would there have been an agreement to that specific amount? From a board whose majority had, to that point, appeared to have shown little interest in settling at all?
Heard about town, since Thursday, from a selectman or two... "This will go away;" "This will all be forgotten." "This will all blow over."
Do you remember a selectman - no longer with us - who said, on August 4, 2009, "This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." ?
The town's business, all 23 items of it, will be addressed Monday 6-28-10 at the selectboard's meeting in the town office at 7 PM. Items 3-7 should be...a matter of form. Depending on what else emerges in addition to the words on the agenda [editor's note: linked in the previous 2 postings] there are possibilities of this being a meaty time. Some of us will stay til the bitter end.
Point of Clarification:
Since it does not appear that the Town of Paris has issued a public statement, to date, with results of the mediation session Thursday 6-24-10 that resulted in a settlement agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding on the Jackson vs Town of Paris Rule 80 B Complaint, it would seem that TPR is, to date, the sole media observer.
So, to make the points in TPR's Friday 6-25-10 posting Memorandum of Understanding, crystal clear, with no possibility of innuendoes or grey areas - or in spite of any spin that may emerge at Monday's selectboard meeting:
From TPR's Friday posting, "...the sum agreed on was $32,502.76 - the amount, based on the terms of Jackson's contract, that would have been due to her in back pay and severance, if the calculation is done from 10-08-09, the date when the original termination (6-22-09) was "ratified."
Further explanation:
The town's case against Jackson was led from August 2009 - March 2010... by a complete absence of much of anything at all.
The town's case was, however, led vigorously from March to present time by Selectman Kurtz (followed strenuously by most of the rest of the board), who held strongly that Jackson's case was not based on any legal complaint.
Looking to find a way to retrieve her job, on the basis of a 1999 warrant item voted in the affirmative by Paris voters that stated selectmen elected in Paris' annual election in June would be seated as of July 1, Jackson charged in her July 21, 2009 80 B Complaint that Selectman Ripley, newly elected 6-08-09 and sworn in after the town meeting 6-12-09, was not legally seated on 6-22-09 when he voted, in a 3-2 vote, to fire her.
The relative Maine statue, 30-A MRSA sec.2526, cited repeatedly by Kurtz, but also posted in its entirety several times on TPR, gives no credence to past practice (a term bounced around the board) in choosing the time a newly elected selectman is seated. Rather it allows the legislative body to choose the term. If no choice is made, either by charter or by the town, the only thing the statute sets is the number of selectmen and how long the term is; no statement is made indicating when the term begins or ends.
Connecting the dots:
The Town of Paris' response to Jackson hung on the opinion/belief that selectmen newly elected in the annual June election should be seated right after the annual town meeting; that the decision of the Paris voters in the 1999 Warrant directing that newly elected selectmen be seated on, or after July 1 - was not valid.
Former Selectman Ripley was seated June 22. The Town of Paris' response to Jackson would indicate that Ripley was seated accurately, and that his vote counted in the firing. In fact, the board at that time, apparently wanting to try to make sure the 6-22-09 vote counted, ratified (gave approval for) it on 10-08-09.
The current board has spent many thousands of our dollars on "questions and research" [editor's note: see, for example, TPR posting 6-22-10 Let's talk money]. We can only assume they were heavily invested in their point, and were looking for information to support it.
One can surmise, then, that the reason the figures in the settlement above appear to have been calculated from October 8, 2009, is because that would be the actual date of the firing, i.e., all 3 of the 3-2 vote to fire were legally seated and the vote was valid.
One can also surmise that during the mediation session Thursday, our selectboard must have accepted that the 1999 warrant vote for newly elected Paris selectmen to be seated on July 1 or after, holds. Otherwise, why would there have been an agreement to that specific amount? From a board whose majority had, to that point, appeared to have shown little interest in settling at all?
Heard about town, since Thursday, from a selectman or two... "This will go away;" "This will all be forgotten." "This will all blow over."
Do you remember a selectman - no longer with us - who said, on August 4, 2009, "This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." ?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Addendum to Monday's agenda
Relating to the post below, items 16,17,18 listing "see attached sheet:"
these links show lists that appear to be for the selectboard to weigh in on.
Item 16
Item 17
Item 18
these links show lists that appear to be for the selectboard to weigh in on.
Item 16
Item 17
Item 18
And on Monday the 28th...
...the Paris selectboard will gather for their regular bi-monthly business meeting, 7 pm at the town office. Agenda here.
A full agenda. Some appointments to be announced (items 16,17,18) and a couple of elections (items 22,23).
Nothing listed on the agenda to indicate there was any recent point of interest on a certain law suit...and that there is a next step required.
Perhaps the fact that the vote to settle was already taken, no one really needed to know anything more? Perhaps there will be a verbal reference.....
A full agenda. Some appointments to be announced (items 16,17,18) and a couple of elections (items 22,23).
Nothing listed on the agenda to indicate there was any recent point of interest on a certain law suit...and that there is a next step required.
Perhaps the fact that the vote to settle was already taken, no one really needed to know anything more? Perhaps there will be a verbal reference.....
Memorandum of Understanding
About 4 pm Thursday 6-24-10, a vote of the Paris selectboard was taken that affirmed a negotiated resolution of the lawsuit brought by former town manager Sharon Jackson against the Town of Paris. The results of that vote will be reflected in the minutes of the public part of the selectboard's meeting.
The vote was taken as the board came out of the executive session begun at 8 AM Thursday, and was recessed for the 5 selectboard members to meet in Lewiston at the office of Atty. Peter J. DeTroy, of the firm Norman, Hanson, & DeTroy, mediator, to address the lawsuit.
After about 6 hours of mediation, the sum agreed on was $32,502.76 - the amount, based on the terms of Jackson's contract, that would have been due to her in back pay and severance, if the calculation is done from 10-08-09, the date when the original termination (6-22-09) was "ratified."
Calculating the amount from this date would suggest that the October date of "ratification" for the original firing, rather than the date of the original firing itself, was the correct and accepted vote to establish the termination.
The wording of the memorandum indicates that there will need to be "necessary authorization by the legislative body of the Town of Paris," and that will likely happen soon in the form of a special town meeting.
The vote was taken as the board came out of the executive session begun at 8 AM Thursday, and was recessed for the 5 selectboard members to meet in Lewiston at the office of Atty. Peter J. DeTroy, of the firm Norman, Hanson, & DeTroy, mediator, to address the lawsuit.
After about 6 hours of mediation, the sum agreed on was $32,502.76 - the amount, based on the terms of Jackson's contract, that would have been due to her in back pay and severance, if the calculation is done from 10-08-09, the date when the original termination (6-22-09) was "ratified."
Calculating the amount from this date would suggest that the October date of "ratification" for the original firing, rather than the date of the original firing itself, was the correct and accepted vote to establish the termination.
The wording of the memorandum indicates that there will need to be "necessary authorization by the legislative body of the Town of Paris," and that will likely happen soon in the form of a special town meeting.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
8 AM Thursday...
...June 24, there will be a special Paris selectboard meeting at the town office; some of us will probably be there, no matter the hour. Agenda here, in stark black and white.
To our selectboard: [ editor's note: Even though addressed to the board, this is a message for all of us, as well.]
We are all owners of this town, you board members and we voters. This town, the property and the lives of the people in it, are affected by you and your decisions; but they are also affected by us and our decisions. We are wrapped up together, and must be responsive to each other to make this town work.
You do not know what is best for us, nor do we get to hold you hostage to our demands.
We ask each of you :
As a member of our team of representatives headed to mediation Thursday morning, go prepared to be your own person; go prepared to make your decision(s) based on your own experience and history in this community. No one has forgotten the last year in this town. Nor will anyone forget how this will be handled Thursday.
Isn't it time for this to end?
To our selectboard: [ editor's note: Even though addressed to the board, this is a message for all of us, as well.]
We are all owners of this town, you board members and we voters. This town, the property and the lives of the people in it, are affected by you and your decisions; but they are also affected by us and our decisions. We are wrapped up together, and must be responsive to each other to make this town work.
You do not know what is best for us, nor do we get to hold you hostage to our demands.
We ask each of you :
As a member of our team of representatives headed to mediation Thursday morning, go prepared to be your own person; go prepared to make your decision(s) based on your own experience and history in this community. No one has forgotten the last year in this town. Nor will anyone forget how this will be handled Thursday.
Isn't it time for this to end?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Let's talk money
OK. First up: Town of Paris Operating Budget, budget to actual figures [editor's note: prepared for town meeting 6-12-10] Citizens are soothed with encouraging words - not to worry - fine shape.
Perhaps.... Time will be the judge of that.
TPR wishes to focus on a particular line item that is, even without the June figures, 37% over budget. The line item for legal expenses in the 2008-09 budget was $8000; by the time the figures were printed for the town meeting in June, the current figure was $24,453.
About 39% of the total legal expenses to date have been the current lawsuit.
In previous postings, TPR has addressed legal costs - related to the lawsuit specifically - totaling about $3000, from July 2009 through December 2009. The total for January through end of May, however, not yet counting June, is more than twice that amount: $6,645. Roughly $9600 total .
Beginning in March, the bills have increased substantially, with costs for extensive preparation for meetings, requested research, questions to be answered, and then more research. By April the amount spent just on this case had grown to $2082.24; and by May, the research and questions to be answered had expanded to bring the total amount spent to $3205.50.
Consider: the whole first 6 months of the year didn't cost as much as what we have paid for the month of May.
And, for those who have the time to plow through it, May's bill shows almost $1600 worth of just questions and research. One wonders just what the quest was, and who initiated it. One also wonders if the reason the searches keep increasing is because what is wanted... simply isn't there.
So, next: Mediation on Thursday. One lawyer per side, plus sharing cost of the mediator. $250 per hour for Atty. Hole; estimating the mediator (lawyer) $250-$300 per hour, or $125-$150 each side. Each side talks, mediator talks to each, everyone meets again. 2-3 hours? More? Estimate anywhere from $625-$800.
Add legal costs of this case to date ($9600) to mediation estimate ($625-800) = $10,225-$10,400
And finally: If our elected officials cannot manage a responsible decision before, a full blown court trial: lawyer(s) preparing the case; lawyer(s) trying the case; court costs....
Rule of thumb, it is said, is that costs will start at triple whatever you're paying in legal costs at the moment. That puts us at about $30 K to $31K to start. Just the beginning....
The process escalates; the costs escalate; so much could have been prevented - even since March. There is no excuse for what this town is going to have to pay.
It is simply a matter of how much.
Perhaps.... Time will be the judge of that.
TPR wishes to focus on a particular line item that is, even without the June figures, 37% over budget. The line item for legal expenses in the 2008-09 budget was $8000; by the time the figures were printed for the town meeting in June, the current figure was $24,453.
About 39% of the total legal expenses to date have been the current lawsuit.
In previous postings, TPR has addressed legal costs - related to the lawsuit specifically - totaling about $3000, from July 2009 through December 2009. The total for January through end of May, however, not yet counting June, is more than twice that amount: $6,645. Roughly $9600 total .
Beginning in March, the bills have increased substantially, with costs for extensive preparation for meetings, requested research, questions to be answered, and then more research. By April the amount spent just on this case had grown to $2082.24; and by May, the research and questions to be answered had expanded to bring the total amount spent to $3205.50.
Consider: the whole first 6 months of the year didn't cost as much as what we have paid for the month of May.
And, for those who have the time to plow through it, May's bill shows almost $1600 worth of just questions and research. One wonders just what the quest was, and who initiated it. One also wonders if the reason the searches keep increasing is because what is wanted... simply isn't there.
So, next: Mediation on Thursday. One lawyer per side, plus sharing cost of the mediator. $250 per hour for Atty. Hole; estimating the mediator (lawyer) $250-$300 per hour, or $125-$150 each side. Each side talks, mediator talks to each, everyone meets again. 2-3 hours? More? Estimate anywhere from $625-$800.
Add legal costs of this case to date ($9600) to mediation estimate ($625-800) = $10,225-$10,400
And finally: If our elected officials cannot manage a responsible decision before, a full blown court trial: lawyer(s) preparing the case; lawyer(s) trying the case; court costs....
Rule of thumb, it is said, is that costs will start at triple whatever you're paying in legal costs at the moment. That puts us at about $30 K to $31K to start. Just the beginning....
The process escalates; the costs escalate; so much could have been prevented - even since March. There is no excuse for what this town is going to have to pay.
It is simply a matter of how much.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Heads Up
It has finally come. This week, Thursday. Our selectboard opens a meeting at 8 am at the town office and will recess and go as a board to meet with a professional mediator to consider terms for negotiating a solution for the Rule 80B Complaint, Jackson v. the Town of Paris.
There is no more putting it off, no more time to create spin, no more pretending that if we refuse to look it will go away. No more looking for excuses for why our elected officials have dragged their feet and tried to go in every direction except straight ahead to deal with the crisis caused by a vengeful firing of a competent and widely respected town manager.
And no more looking for ways to avoid the simple fact that from March 2010, if there had been even a conversation - a series of questions and answers - a discussion - between (a) the selectboard that replaced the recalled and disgraced individuals, and (b) the former town manager, this town would not be one meager little step away from court and the threat of thousands of dollars in court and legal costs - because there are those who are, even now, counseling not to negotiate.
And still, even, at this eleventh hour, the individuals who perpetrated the firing are nowhere; and the focus is not on the wrongness of their actions - or the hundreds of people who made their political will known on this topic. And still, courage in decision-making by our elected officials is missing. By default the whole focus has become about the cost. It did not need to come to this...
Shame.
There is no more putting it off, no more time to create spin, no more pretending that if we refuse to look it will go away. No more looking for excuses for why our elected officials have dragged their feet and tried to go in every direction except straight ahead to deal with the crisis caused by a vengeful firing of a competent and widely respected town manager.
And no more looking for ways to avoid the simple fact that from March 2010, if there had been even a conversation - a series of questions and answers - a discussion - between (a) the selectboard that replaced the recalled and disgraced individuals, and (b) the former town manager, this town would not be one meager little step away from court and the threat of thousands of dollars in court and legal costs - because there are those who are, even now, counseling not to negotiate.
And still, even, at this eleventh hour, the individuals who perpetrated the firing are nowhere; and the focus is not on the wrongness of their actions - or the hundreds of people who made their political will known on this topic. And still, courage in decision-making by our elected officials is missing. By default the whole focus has become about the cost. It did not need to come to this...
Shame.
Didn't we elect five of them?
A large packet of legal directives and general legal information printed out from the internet on lawyer-client privilege - one for each of the other 4 on the selectboard at the meeting with town attorney Hole on 6-15-10....
Is this part of the preparation for his letter to the editor from one selectman to the Advertiser Democrat 6-17-10 with his personal views of the town attorney handling the current lawsuit before the town?
As well as an explanation for an article in the Sun Journal 6-10-10, Kurtz Criticizes Town's Legal Representation ?
As well as laying the groundwork for being thought more capable than the current town attorney?
As well as building a case for being better prepared and more knowledgeable and all around smarter person than the current lawyer?
And what have the other 4 to say about this singular representation? Everybody agrees with him? It's ok for him to speak for everyone? He's the official spokesman?
It's ok for personal legal opinions to come through Selectman Kurtz? This is how the people in this town will be educated? Do the other 4 have any opinion on that? Any frustration at all? Any worry that they are being managed?
Consider the fact that we elected 5 selectpersons, not 4 selectpersons and one lawyer - a lawyer who appears to have a personal interest in how this case is conducted... against the individual who was town manager when this particular lawyer's law firm was officially not asked after 2006 to handle any new legal business for the town of Paris ...in favor of the current town attorney.
Didn't we elect five of them to work as a team? Where's the rest of the team? If voters in this town had wanted someone to tell us - and the rest of our elected officials - what we all should do because he knows best, we wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of recalling 2 of the crew who tried to do that exact thing to us last year.
Where is the rest of this board? Can they talk? Do they think? Can they not say "Enough!" if it's necessary? Why ever not?
Is this part of the preparation for his letter to the editor from one selectman to the Advertiser Democrat 6-17-10 with his personal views of the town attorney handling the current lawsuit before the town?
As well as an explanation for an article in the Sun Journal 6-10-10, Kurtz Criticizes Town's Legal Representation ?
As well as laying the groundwork for being thought more capable than the current town attorney?
As well as building a case for being better prepared and more knowledgeable and all around smarter person than the current lawyer?
And what have the other 4 to say about this singular representation? Everybody agrees with him? It's ok for him to speak for everyone? He's the official spokesman?
It's ok for personal legal opinions to come through Selectman Kurtz? This is how the people in this town will be educated? Do the other 4 have any opinion on that? Any frustration at all? Any worry that they are being managed?
Consider the fact that we elected 5 selectpersons, not 4 selectpersons and one lawyer - a lawyer who appears to have a personal interest in how this case is conducted... against the individual who was town manager when this particular lawyer's law firm was officially not asked after 2006 to handle any new legal business for the town of Paris ...in favor of the current town attorney.
Didn't we elect five of them to work as a team? Where's the rest of the team? If voters in this town had wanted someone to tell us - and the rest of our elected officials - what we all should do because he knows best, we wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of recalling 2 of the crew who tried to do that exact thing to us last year.
Where is the rest of this board? Can they talk? Do they think? Can they not say "Enough!" if it's necessary? Why ever not?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
And one more time
Posted here is the agenda for Paris selectboard's meeting with town atty. Hole later today, 6-15-10. The executive session, of course, is not open to the public, even though the meeting itself is public information.
On June 24 the town of Paris will send a representative to a mediation session with a representative of the plaintiff's case in the 80-B Complaint, Jackson vs. the Town of Paris. One assumes instructions will be issued and questions answered...
...for those on our selectboard who wish to be educated.
However, for those on our board who have chosen a path of denial, denial, and not negotiating in any way because denial, for them, is the only meaningful course....and those who repeatedly replenish the supply of sand to cover their heads...
Raise your hands all those of you who hold out hope for sudden realistic negotiating at this late date. The accountability and, yes, wisdom of some elected leaders are under scrutiny.
We are now down to the dollar costs. Just that. Only. TPR has written words and words on that topic....
The $$$ costs facing this town, to date and projected - if court becomes the logical default, and whether Paris wins or not - will be discussed on a later posting on TPR.
This town is totally unprepared
On June 24 the town of Paris will send a representative to a mediation session with a representative of the plaintiff's case in the 80-B Complaint, Jackson vs. the Town of Paris. One assumes instructions will be issued and questions answered...
...for those on our selectboard who wish to be educated.
However, for those on our board who have chosen a path of denial, denial, and not negotiating in any way because denial, for them, is the only meaningful course....and those who repeatedly replenish the supply of sand to cover their heads...
Raise your hands all those of you who hold out hope for sudden realistic negotiating at this late date. The accountability and, yes, wisdom of some elected leaders are under scrutiny.
We are now down to the dollar costs. Just that. Only. TPR has written words and words on that topic....
The $$$ costs facing this town, to date and projected - if court becomes the logical default, and whether Paris wins or not - will be discussed on a later posting on TPR.
This town is totally unprepared
Monday, June 14, 2010
They got down to business
14 items tonight...and 2 hours and 45 minutes later, our new five member board finished the business they got down to.
A little slow getting out of the starting gate, though. There was immediate insistence - 8 minutes and 40 seconds of it, all told - from one selectman, that state statute required electing of a chair and vice chair before going another single step. "... it's something we're required by law to do at this meeting."
This from the selectman who has a previous interest in when the term begins and ends for a newly elected selectboard members. Was this an effort to sway thinking to his bias?
That, contrary to the choice made by Paris voters in 1999 - that life of the selectboard should begin on or after July 1 - the board before us tonight was starting its new life right now, its new members having been sworn in right after the town meeting in the 12th of June?
MRSA 2526 Choice and qualifications of town officials, especially subsection 4D that talks about term of office, was cited. More than once...However, when two other selectboard members looked at the statute for themselves, there was no concurrence with his interpretation of the statute . [ editor's note: TPR readers may come to their own conclusion; subsection 4D is highlighted in the link above..]
Chairman Glover settled the discussion by saying that the board would go by past practice and vote for chairman and vice chairman at the close of the last meeting in June. Curiously, this past practice seems closer to the wishes of the 1999 voters....
*Bills were paid; civil engineer Robert Prue presented plans that will allow work on Oxford Street and East Oxford Road;
*It had become apparent that medical leave as a policy was (a) already in place in the Employee Handbook, and (b) under revision by the Policy and Procedure Committee and so there would be no discussion tonight;
*Fire Chief Frost accepted the bid for the company who will build the tank truck.
And there was a brand new item for the town of Paris to consider: Patricia Pelletier, a local teacher at OHCHS, presented a detailed description of her request to establish a dispensary for (and thereby the growing of) medical marijuana. Even though Pelletier is faced with an approaching deadline, no decision could be made on the part of the town tonight because there were simply so many unknowns. It is likely a moratorium will be proposed to the voters, and an educational effort made on all fronts.
The selectboard (and audience) looked at some sample ordinances gathered ahead of time by Town Manager Tarr on how a moratorium on such a proposed project might work.
And then an interesting, rather informal conversation sprang up.
Mgr. Tarr: Will you look at the two sample ordinances that you have and tell me what you like?
Ch. Glover: Yep.
Mgr. Tarr: ...wordage...
Ch. Glover: We can be looking at these...
Selectman Kurtz: (addressing Mgr. Tarr) I like the second one...
Mgr. Tarr: ....versions....
Sel. K: (continuing to focus on Mgr. Tarr) Well, y'know, in terms of our dialog over the weekend, and today, I mean....and that came out from the first to the second...
Mgr. Tarr: Yeah. That was clarified today.
[editor's note: what was clarified is that over the weekend and today there was some private conferring; but, more importantly, this is not the first time there was a specific comment directed, in public, to Mgr. Tarr from this selectman, making very clear that there had been a private conversation between the two of them.]
Is that a problem? Do you wonder?
And then this, in a last item, under "Selectmen concerns":
Sel. Kurtz: I've been trying for the last month or so to sort out the legal issues involved in these questions.....something that would be extremely helpful to me would be to pick up the phone and call MMA...and have them talk to me.
...I did that, I was informed that the town of Paris has a kind of unusual arrangement with them, which is that only the town manager and the chairman of the selectboard... have access to them.
...I'd just like to raise this as a question, and ask why this is so? And, can we change it?
And these would be questions for our readers from TPR:
Do you remember what TPR asked over and over during the disasterous 7 month fiasco of last year? We asked: "Who's running this town?" Do you remember?
A little slow getting out of the starting gate, though. There was immediate insistence - 8 minutes and 40 seconds of it, all told - from one selectman, that state statute required electing of a chair and vice chair before going another single step. "... it's something we're required by law to do at this meeting."
This from the selectman who has a previous interest in when the term begins and ends for a newly elected selectboard members. Was this an effort to sway thinking to his bias?
That, contrary to the choice made by Paris voters in 1999 - that life of the selectboard should begin on or after July 1 - the board before us tonight was starting its new life right now, its new members having been sworn in right after the town meeting in the 12th of June?
MRSA 2526 Choice and qualifications of town officials, especially subsection 4D that talks about term of office, was cited. More than once...However, when two other selectboard members looked at the statute for themselves, there was no concurrence with his interpretation of the statute . [ editor's note: TPR readers may come to their own conclusion; subsection 4D is highlighted in the link above..]
Chairman Glover settled the discussion by saying that the board would go by past practice and vote for chairman and vice chairman at the close of the last meeting in June. Curiously, this past practice seems closer to the wishes of the 1999 voters....
*Bills were paid; civil engineer Robert Prue presented plans that will allow work on Oxford Street and East Oxford Road;
*It had become apparent that medical leave as a policy was (a) already in place in the Employee Handbook, and (b) under revision by the Policy and Procedure Committee and so there would be no discussion tonight;
*Fire Chief Frost accepted the bid for the company who will build the tank truck.
And there was a brand new item for the town of Paris to consider: Patricia Pelletier, a local teacher at OHCHS, presented a detailed description of her request to establish a dispensary for (and thereby the growing of) medical marijuana. Even though Pelletier is faced with an approaching deadline, no decision could be made on the part of the town tonight because there were simply so many unknowns. It is likely a moratorium will be proposed to the voters, and an educational effort made on all fronts.
The selectboard (and audience) looked at some sample ordinances gathered ahead of time by Town Manager Tarr on how a moratorium on such a proposed project might work.
And then an interesting, rather informal conversation sprang up.
Mgr. Tarr: Will you look at the two sample ordinances that you have and tell me what you like?
Ch. Glover: Yep.
Mgr. Tarr: ...wordage...
Ch. Glover: We can be looking at these...
Selectman Kurtz: (addressing Mgr. Tarr) I like the second one...
Mgr. Tarr: ....versions....
Sel. K: (continuing to focus on Mgr. Tarr) Well, y'know, in terms of our dialog over the weekend, and today, I mean....and that came out from the first to the second...
Mgr. Tarr: Yeah. That was clarified today.
[editor's note: what was clarified is that over the weekend and today there was some private conferring; but, more importantly, this is not the first time there was a specific comment directed, in public, to Mgr. Tarr from this selectman, making very clear that there had been a private conversation between the two of them.]
Is that a problem? Do you wonder?
And then this, in a last item, under "Selectmen concerns":
Sel. Kurtz: I've been trying for the last month or so to sort out the legal issues involved in these questions.....something that would be extremely helpful to me would be to pick up the phone and call MMA...and have them talk to me.
...I did that, I was informed that the town of Paris has a kind of unusual arrangement with them, which is that only the town manager and the chairman of the selectboard... have access to them.
...I'd just like to raise this as a question, and ask why this is so? And, can we change it?
And these would be questions for our readers from TPR:
Do you remember what TPR asked over and over during the disasterous 7 month fiasco of last year? We asked: "Who's running this town?" Do you remember?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Getting down to business
About 60 Paris voters gathered Saturday the 12th in the fire station to transact the annual business of the town, essentially the items that make up the budget for the following year.
The audience was orderly and attentive, and some people asked relevant questions that were reasonably answered. Vic Hodgkins, budget committee chair, came prepared to explain his committee's work. Several members of the audience were well versed in meeting protocol, and this particular audience found a whole new favorite set of words in "I move the question".
The Sun Journal has posted articles, both before and after the town meeting, giving information on the content of the meeting. [editor's note: the entire warrant for the annual meeting was posted on the previous site of TPR.]
What was not reported is a protocol item, as well, but for the selectboard itself. One specific board member has consistently displayed a habit of interrupting; jumping in with a question or point of challenge out of turn to speak over a person who had been waiting a turn to speak; and pontificating for no apparent reason other than to pontificate. This behavior was apparent at more than one point in the meeting Saturday; this behavior has been apparent at selectboard meetings; and this behavior seems equally unnecessary and inappropriate in either setting.
This is not to say that our former town attorney selectman does not have some ideas and opinions worth hearing.
It does say, however, that this arena is not the courtroom; this selectboard and the town manager are not his private staff; and his counsel and direction are not what his elected status now indicates a need for. He must now be a team player, and there are not a few voters waiting for the rest of the selectboard, especially its chairman, to make that clear.
Monday 6-14-10 at 7pm, our new 5 member selectboard will meet at the town office. One of the items on the agenda, is #11, Discussion and action on medical leave policy. The current Town of Paris Employee Handbook is, as a matter of fact, being updated and reworked by the Policy and Procedures Committee, at the request of the town manager. There are several sections in the current policy referring to vacation time, sick leave, benefits, etc. Posted here is the current statement on Sick Leave.
The selectboard is the final review board for policy in our municipal structure. It would seem they have specific concerns they wish to address on this topic of sick leave themselves at this point. Perhaps it may have to do with the recent borrowing ahead of paid sick leave recently granted without question to the current town manager?
The audience was orderly and attentive, and some people asked relevant questions that were reasonably answered. Vic Hodgkins, budget committee chair, came prepared to explain his committee's work. Several members of the audience were well versed in meeting protocol, and this particular audience found a whole new favorite set of words in "I move the question".
The Sun Journal has posted articles, both before and after the town meeting, giving information on the content of the meeting. [editor's note: the entire warrant for the annual meeting was posted on the previous site of TPR.]
What was not reported is a protocol item, as well, but for the selectboard itself. One specific board member has consistently displayed a habit of interrupting; jumping in with a question or point of challenge out of turn to speak over a person who had been waiting a turn to speak; and pontificating for no apparent reason other than to pontificate. This behavior was apparent at more than one point in the meeting Saturday; this behavior has been apparent at selectboard meetings; and this behavior seems equally unnecessary and inappropriate in either setting.
This is not to say that our former town attorney selectman does not have some ideas and opinions worth hearing.
It does say, however, that this arena is not the courtroom; this selectboard and the town manager are not his private staff; and his counsel and direction are not what his elected status now indicates a need for. He must now be a team player, and there are not a few voters waiting for the rest of the selectboard, especially its chairman, to make that clear.
Monday 6-14-10 at 7pm, our new 5 member selectboard will meet at the town office. One of the items on the agenda, is #11, Discussion and action on medical leave policy. The current Town of Paris Employee Handbook is, as a matter of fact, being updated and reworked by the Policy and Procedures Committee, at the request of the town manager. There are several sections in the current policy referring to vacation time, sick leave, benefits, etc. Posted here is the current statement on Sick Leave.
The selectboard is the final review board for policy in our municipal structure. It would seem they have specific concerns they wish to address on this topic of sick leave themselves at this point. Perhaps it may have to do with the recent borrowing ahead of paid sick leave recently granted without question to the current town manager?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
So here we are...
...with a full selectboard in Paris, now; ready to face the rigors of running this little town. The annual town meeting coming up Saturday, 6-12-10, Paris fire station, 10 AM; and at its conclusion the swearing into office of our latest 2 board members.
This point of swearing in at that particular moment - seems of optimum importance to a few individuals in this town, for a variety of reasons.... Perhaps that's noteworthy, perhaps not. Time will definitely be the judge of that.
But, as we ordinary citizens decide about casting votes hither and yon, on budgets and plans and projects, there are some interesting items to consider.
Things to bear in mind when we listen to specific individuals tell us what to do and what we ought to understand:
*We have a former Paris town attorney on our selectboard - that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But, this point - of when a newly elected selectman's term actually begins and ends ... does lend itself to wondering: was this previous-attorney-selectman, or his law partner, the practicing town attorney when a vote was taken by Paris voters at the annual town meeting in 1999 that established the specific term of office for Paris selectmen?
In D. Langeveld's article 6-10-10, "Kurtz criticizes town's legal representation" in the Sun Journal, Langeveld states that Kurtz "...served as the attorney for the town from 1974 until about 2008...". If this is so, one might note, with interest, this particular selectman's vehemence in protesting any force representing a view that disagreed with the view on this subject given in the 2005 letter from the firm of Kurtz & Perry, posted previously on this site, and written to address another issue.
During the 5-24-10 selectboard meeting, this selectman said, referring to the 1999 legislative action to define when selectmen's terms start and finish, "My position is that the 1999 ordinance is null and void - the town of Paris had no power to enact that - it's a nullity, legally...."
Could this selectman's protest extend as far as a bias on a law suit currently facing the town? A law suit the outcome of which this individual selectman gives the appearance of intending to influence?
* The law firm of this same selectman handled the legal work for the town of Paris up until 2006 - except for the specific case involving the ownership of the Colby Farm Road that ended in 2008; does one wonder if there may be some resentment that one's law firm was supplanted by the firm of Bernstein Shur - and our current town attorney G. Hole?
Is there any possible significance, or connection, to be derived from the fact that the town manager at the time of changing law firms was S. Jackson, the plaintiff in the current lawsuit facing the town of Paris?
This point of swearing in at that particular moment - seems of optimum importance to a few individuals in this town, for a variety of reasons.... Perhaps that's noteworthy, perhaps not. Time will definitely be the judge of that.
But, as we ordinary citizens decide about casting votes hither and yon, on budgets and plans and projects, there are some interesting items to consider.
Things to bear in mind when we listen to specific individuals tell us what to do and what we ought to understand:
*We have a former Paris town attorney on our selectboard - that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But, this point - of when a newly elected selectman's term actually begins and ends ... does lend itself to wondering: was this previous-attorney-selectman, or his law partner, the practicing town attorney when a vote was taken by Paris voters at the annual town meeting in 1999 that established the specific term of office for Paris selectmen?
In D. Langeveld's article 6-10-10, "Kurtz criticizes town's legal representation" in the Sun Journal, Langeveld states that Kurtz "...served as the attorney for the town from 1974 until about 2008...". If this is so, one might note, with interest, this particular selectman's vehemence in protesting any force representing a view that disagreed with the view on this subject given in the 2005 letter from the firm of Kurtz & Perry, posted previously on this site, and written to address another issue.
During the 5-24-10 selectboard meeting, this selectman said, referring to the 1999 legislative action to define when selectmen's terms start and finish, "My position is that the 1999 ordinance is null and void - the town of Paris had no power to enact that - it's a nullity, legally...."
Could this selectman's protest extend as far as a bias on a law suit currently facing the town? A law suit the outcome of which this individual selectman gives the appearance of intending to influence?
* The law firm of this same selectman handled the legal work for the town of Paris up until 2006 - except for the specific case involving the ownership of the Colby Farm Road that ended in 2008; does one wonder if there may be some resentment that one's law firm was supplanted by the firm of Bernstein Shur - and our current town attorney G. Hole?
Is there any possible significance, or connection, to be derived from the fact that the town manager at the time of changing law firms was S. Jackson, the plaintiff in the current lawsuit facing the town of Paris?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
And to settle the rest of the story
Tuesday's election was only half of the process that sets out the coming year(s) for Paris. The rest of the plan is presented for discussion, and then vote of the people, at the open town meeting Saturday, 6-12-10, 10 AM at the fire station.
Money cannot be spent or decisions made unless that action is made in front of the people, and it is ultimately the voters who make the decisions. Granted, the plans are implemented through the officials elected by the people, as well as the committees and individuals appointed, even hired, by those officials.
The town meeting warrant lists 33 items, and is posted on this site. Items 1-4 were addressed in Tuesday's election. The remaining items focus on how taxpayers' dollars will be spent.
With the exception of any special town meetings called to address unforeseen expenses or events, Saturday's meeting will be the only occasion for Paris voters, as a body, to address the financial concerns leading from individual pocketbook to municipal function.
There is protocol for how the meeting is conducted; but this meeting is a guaranteed opportunity for voters to ask questions. Asking questions is the best way to learn about how this town is operating.
Interesting to consider: Who responded to the question? Did the question really get answered? Did the response raise additional questions that need to be answered?
This town belongs to all its citizens; this makes us all responsible.
Money cannot be spent or decisions made unless that action is made in front of the people, and it is ultimately the voters who make the decisions. Granted, the plans are implemented through the officials elected by the people, as well as the committees and individuals appointed, even hired, by those officials.
The town meeting warrant lists 33 items, and is posted on this site. Items 1-4 were addressed in Tuesday's election. The remaining items focus on how taxpayers' dollars will be spent.
With the exception of any special town meetings called to address unforeseen expenses or events, Saturday's meeting will be the only occasion for Paris voters, as a body, to address the financial concerns leading from individual pocketbook to municipal function.
There is protocol for how the meeting is conducted; but this meeting is a guaranteed opportunity for voters to ask questions. Asking questions is the best way to learn about how this town is operating.
Interesting to consider: Who responded to the question? Did the question really get answered? Did the response raise additional questions that need to be answered?
This town belongs to all its citizens; this makes us all responsible.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Election in Paris, 6-08-10
At the end of the day, here are the local figures. Readers will note that individual tallies make it clear that not all voters voted on all issues or candidates.
Town Clerk Liz Knox estimated total turnout at 1167 voters today, with the estimated absentee ballot count around 100. This is about 32% of Paris' 3600 registered voters.
Although not as great a turnout as November 2009 (2136 voters or 59.3%), today's turnout is pretty close to the count for the June 2009 election.
Local referendum items:
#1, amendments for subdivision ordinance, 579 Yes; 381 No.
#2,amendments for recall ordinance, 543 Yes; 411 No.
Paris Utility District trustee, 3 yr. term:
Janet Jamison - 585
Raymond Lussier - 396
SAD 17 Directors:
George Coffren - 836, 1 yr. term
Michael Dignan - 910, 3 yr. term
Selectmen for the Town of Paris:
Ted Kurtz - 862, 3 yr. term
Ken West - 866, 3 yr. term
Welcome aboard, folks! There is much to do.
Town Clerk Liz Knox estimated total turnout at 1167 voters today, with the estimated absentee ballot count around 100. This is about 32% of Paris' 3600 registered voters.
Although not as great a turnout as November 2009 (2136 voters or 59.3%), today's turnout is pretty close to the count for the June 2009 election.
Local referendum items:
#1, amendments for subdivision ordinance, 579 Yes; 381 No.
#2,amendments for recall ordinance, 543 Yes; 411 No.
Paris Utility District trustee, 3 yr. term:
Janet Jamison - 585
Raymond Lussier - 396
SAD 17 Directors:
George Coffren - 836, 1 yr. term
Michael Dignan - 910, 3 yr. term
Selectmen for the Town of Paris:
Ted Kurtz - 862, 3 yr. term
Ken West - 866, 3 yr. term
Welcome aboard, folks! There is much to do.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The highest standard we can
"We should be grateful that anyone even wants to run." [editor's note: Heard from a citizen in this community last Sunday, referring to the upcoming election Tuesday 6-8-10.]
Well, yes. Citizens in any municipality should always be grateful when another citizen is willing to do something extra. An individual's time is valuable, and should always be treated with respect.
But that does not mandate a free ride for anything like a personal agenda. We saw how that worked out last June 2009 ( newly elected officials made a disastrous decision that changed this town, as well as the lives of several individuals, for the foreseeable future);
...and November 2009 (1500 Paris voters put a new recall ordinance into place) ;
...and February 2010 (over 600 Paris voters, in two elections, recalled 2 of the 3 officials who made the disastrous decision in June 09, and prevented the recall of 2 other officials put on the chopping block by whim of game players).
This is not to say that either candidate for selectman on Tuesday's ballot is arriving with a personal agenda. And arriving it will be, since there is no contest for either seating, and the election will be a done deal for each of the two open seats. While uncontested in itself does not portend a negative, it does raise the stakes. Three years can be a long time if a decision turned out not to be for the best.
Voters are looking for a candidate who, in the elected role of insuring proper running of this town:
* is his or her own person;
* is not easily intimidated, but is able to listen and learn;
* is willing to find out facts for himself or herself.
Tuesday's ballot lists one new potential selectman, and another selectman running for re-election. Our one new selectman will make himself known in short measure.
And our one returning selectman, who finished out a term for a selectman removed by recall.... While bringing some hard questions into several board discussions on town matters, an observer might wonder if, during those 3 months, there were times this selectman forgot to remove his former Attorney for the Town of Paris hat...?
During the last 2 years, Geoff Hole, of Bernstein Shur, has been the practicing town attorney for Paris, and is so currently. There have been words of open antagonism toward Atty. Hole from this selectman . This selectman also seems to have brought the appearance of a directive energy to the board re. the current law suit, Town of Paris vs. Jackson, with a general aura of "I know what's best here." Do we have a battle of the attorneys? Of ego? Never mind the facts? Or the people?
In addressing the town manager at meetings, when this selectman uses phrases like "You and I have talked about this, and..." are frequently folded in, and the manager responds "Yes, we talked about this...." , one cannot help but wonder just what was discussed? And how often does this go on? Do we have a self-appointed advisor here?
This particular selectman has not hesitated to point out the importance of appearance in the behavior of public officials to his selectboard peers....
We do need 2 capable and willing Paris citizens to fill 2 seats on the Paris selectboard. We will be grateful for their time, their expertise, their willingness to listen. It is important to hold all of our elected officials to the highest standard we can.
Well, yes. Citizens in any municipality should always be grateful when another citizen is willing to do something extra. An individual's time is valuable, and should always be treated with respect.
But that does not mandate a free ride for anything like a personal agenda. We saw how that worked out last June 2009 ( newly elected officials made a disastrous decision that changed this town, as well as the lives of several individuals, for the foreseeable future);
...and November 2009 (1500 Paris voters put a new recall ordinance into place) ;
...and February 2010 (over 600 Paris voters, in two elections, recalled 2 of the 3 officials who made the disastrous decision in June 09, and prevented the recall of 2 other officials put on the chopping block by whim of game players).
This is not to say that either candidate for selectman on Tuesday's ballot is arriving with a personal agenda. And arriving it will be, since there is no contest for either seating, and the election will be a done deal for each of the two open seats. While uncontested in itself does not portend a negative, it does raise the stakes. Three years can be a long time if a decision turned out not to be for the best.
Voters are looking for a candidate who, in the elected role of insuring proper running of this town:
* is his or her own person;
* is not easily intimidated, but is able to listen and learn;
* is willing to find out facts for himself or herself.
Tuesday's ballot lists one new potential selectman, and another selectman running for re-election. Our one new selectman will make himself known in short measure.
And our one returning selectman, who finished out a term for a selectman removed by recall.... While bringing some hard questions into several board discussions on town matters, an observer might wonder if, during those 3 months, there were times this selectman forgot to remove his former Attorney for the Town of Paris hat...?
During the last 2 years, Geoff Hole, of Bernstein Shur, has been the practicing town attorney for Paris, and is so currently. There have been words of open antagonism toward Atty. Hole from this selectman . This selectman also seems to have brought the appearance of a directive energy to the board re. the current law suit, Town of Paris vs. Jackson, with a general aura of "I know what's best here." Do we have a battle of the attorneys? Of ego? Never mind the facts? Or the people?
In addressing the town manager at meetings, when this selectman uses phrases like "You and I have talked about this, and..." are frequently folded in, and the manager responds "Yes, we talked about this...." , one cannot help but wonder just what was discussed? And how often does this go on? Do we have a self-appointed advisor here?
This particular selectman has not hesitated to point out the importance of appearance in the behavior of public officials to his selectboard peers....
We do need 2 capable and willing Paris citizens to fill 2 seats on the Paris selectboard. We will be grateful for their time, their expertise, their willingness to listen. It is important to hold all of our elected officials to the highest standard we can.
Friday, June 4, 2010
News made good
D. Langeveld's 6-4-10 article in the Sun Journal, "Paris Candidates Focus on Finance," offers some good information for the local election in Paris Tuesday June 8th.
It is critical that Paris voters not take the privilege of voting for granted. If nothing else, this last year in Paris has brought home the need for close observation - even intervention - by voters, to monitor private agendas.
Private agendas, personal grudges, opportunities for grand standing, and indulging in power trips are the alter egos of:
*awareness of, interest in, and understanding of public concern;
*continuing, thorough examination of accurate facts;
*honest, open discourse;
*a good, responsible judgment process that reflects not just the individuals on the selectboard, but the wishes of the people who voted them into office.
It is only with the constant scrutiny of voters that this sometimes delicate balance can be kept in check.
This is a small town; elected officials and those they represent, alike, all walk the same streets, use the same municipal resources, breathe the same air. We do not expect to be told what is good for us and therefor what we should do - and, in fact, what they have decided they are going to do for us.
Rather, we expect our elected officials to remember we are a team. We are responsible for telling them what we think and supporting them - or not; and they are responsible to us, and need to listen.
Remember to vote on Tuesday June 8. Bring your friends. Never mind that some local choices are uncontested - candidates need to be aware of what voters think. Tell them.
It is critical that Paris voters not take the privilege of voting for granted. If nothing else, this last year in Paris has brought home the need for close observation - even intervention - by voters, to monitor private agendas.
Private agendas, personal grudges, opportunities for grand standing, and indulging in power trips are the alter egos of:
*awareness of, interest in, and understanding of public concern;
*continuing, thorough examination of accurate facts;
*honest, open discourse;
*a good, responsible judgment process that reflects not just the individuals on the selectboard, but the wishes of the people who voted them into office.
It is only with the constant scrutiny of voters that this sometimes delicate balance can be kept in check.
This is a small town; elected officials and those they represent, alike, all walk the same streets, use the same municipal resources, breathe the same air. We do not expect to be told what is good for us and therefor what we should do - and, in fact, what they have decided they are going to do for us.
Rather, we expect our elected officials to remember we are a team. We are responsible for telling them what we think and supporting them - or not; and they are responsible to us, and need to listen.
Remember to vote on Tuesday June 8. Bring your friends. Never mind that some local choices are uncontested - candidates need to be aware of what voters think. Tell them.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Are we voting?
Has Tuesday's local election been cancelled in Paris for lack of interest?
Signs everywhere; fallen down in some places and piled up on the ground, there are so many. State and county candidates, these are.
Things happening re. the ballots in Oxford; Norway; Harrison.
Now, in Paris, except for a single Paris Utility District candidate ad in a local paper, as of today, not a peep.
Nothing about absentee ballots - or an election in 4 days - advertised anywhere outside on the grounds of the Paris town office.
Two candidates for Paris selectmen, and no one campaigning - or even talking - anywhere...because no competition makes victory a matter of fact, you say? So why bother? The public will take what they get and like it - or not - you say?
Who needs a mandate when one can just take the job by default and then proceed as if one does have a mandate.....
But to not even pretend an interest in getting people out to vote? To extend an invitation? To show a modicum of interest in the voters themselves?
For more information please see TPR posting of May 19.
Signs everywhere; fallen down in some places and piled up on the ground, there are so many. State and county candidates, these are.
Things happening re. the ballots in Oxford; Norway; Harrison.
Now, in Paris, except for a single Paris Utility District candidate ad in a local paper, as of today, not a peep.
Nothing about absentee ballots - or an election in 4 days - advertised anywhere outside on the grounds of the Paris town office.
Two candidates for Paris selectmen, and no one campaigning - or even talking - anywhere...because no competition makes victory a matter of fact, you say? So why bother? The public will take what they get and like it - or not - you say?
Who needs a mandate when one can just take the job by default and then proceed as if one does have a mandate.....
But to not even pretend an interest in getting people out to vote? To extend an invitation? To show a modicum of interest in the voters themselves?
For more information please see TPR posting of May 19.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)