From a concerned Paris voter last night:
"I think it's very important that we find out what our final cost is...we should get 100% [of the information ] ... the taxpayers ought to know just what this whole thing cost 'em - all the costs associated.
...[And then,] I would say, that this would be over with....Somehow this town needs to heal from this, needs to go forward, and I think this is the time to do it."
The gentleman continued: "I do question whether ...the town might owe our former town manager an apology...I think we probably do....
From what I know about this whole thing and the way things were done and what happened, I think that maybe we owe her an apology - which is an ethical question, not a legal question; and as we all know, there is a big difference between what's legal and what's right. I would suggest that maybe we could weigh that a little bit.
...for us to go forward in this town, we need to get this behind us...I really hope that somehow we attack this so that we don't keep revisiting this over, and over, and over again."
Selectman Kurtz: "Somebody's made an accounting that shows 130-140 thousand dollars; but my question is, unless we're going to give serious thought to pursuing these birds legally, what difference does it make? ...the money's spent, it's gone. What...what's the issue? Why do we have to pin this down?"
Selectman Herrick: "I think, Ted that as Jean [Selectperson Jean Smart] has said, and as the gentleman asked at last month's meeting [see TPR posting 6-29-10 A Good Question] ...y'know, to embrace it, to get my hands around the whole thing...I'd like to know what the total cost is.
If we're talking about a lot of taxpayers' money, I think that whatever assessment it takes to come up with a valid total amount, it's in the interest of the public to know exactly how much that was.
Sel. K: "Well, it's going to come out to 140-150 thousand dollars - we'll get a precise number. My question is, do we want to give any serious thought to pursuing these birds? Otherwise we're just talking about spilled milk.
Sel. H: "I think it's irrelevant whether we pursue 'em or not, knowing how much it cost the taxpayers to do what took place. I'm not interested at this point in pursuing...but with that said, I don't think it depends on whether we pursue the issue, vs. whether we get a full clear picture of what the total cost is."
Further in the conversation, another concerned Paris voter spoke up. She said, her voice increasing with passion as she spoke, "I guess I agree with [the first speaker, re. not revisiting the issue over and over ] but, the other side of it is, we need not to forget the turmoil that we've been through this last year, thanks to Mr. Ripley, Mr. Young, and Mr. Ivey. And I want their names in the record so nobody forgets."
It should be noted that earlier in the meeting, before the above comments, town manager Tarr gave an accounting of the costs of the aftermath of the firing; and even though it was far more realistic than the $50,000 casually tossed around by Chairman Glover and Vice-chair Kurtz the meeting before, Selectperson Smart asked Tarr if she could come in today and look at the figures on record with him and see if there might not be more to include in the town's official report.
TPR agrees *with Selectperson Smart that the town's official report should be as inclusive as humanly possible; *with the first speaker, that healing needs to be allowed to happen, and this town needs to consider an apology to our former manager - not just empty words, but a real statement of accountability and honest reflection; *with Selectman Herrick that knowing what something is - getting one's hands around it - is a step toward understanding it, finding a way to handle it and learn from it; and *with the last speaker above, that we need not to forget what Troy R. Ripley, Glen W. Young, and David W. Ivey cost this town - in dollars, in public trust, in lives torn up, and in time lost forever
