In preparation for the Special Town Meeting July 26th, fire station, 7pm, the previous post focused on Article #2, an ordinance for a moratorium for any plans for a medical dispensary in Paris, and Article #3, authorizing payment for an out-of-court settlement.
The next article challenges Paris voters to step back and take a look at what they are willing to accept for services vs. what they are willing to pay for. TPR does not have an interest in advising readers what to think; only that we must think. And then stand up for what we believe is right and vote accordingly.
[editor's note: warrant article's official wording has been paraphrased by TPR.]
Article #4: a proposal to pay for staffing the Paris Fire Department in such a way as to provide more thorough fire fighting coverage.
The proposal settled on 2 options to fund paying trained individuals to be on call at the fire station itself for a specified number of hours. The dollar amount requested is $90,995; and, for this year, it must be raised as an amendment to the municipal budget approved by voters in June. Only the options for paying (not the details of the operation) are listed on the warrant: (1) raise part of the amount by additional taxes and take part from a reserve fund; (2) raise the entire amount by additional taxes.
There has been citizen request that there will be a clear and simple one page synopsis of the entire question: of need, suggested solution(s), and description of what the pay covers, to hand out at the special town meeting on the 26th, so citizens will know what questions to ask.
There is no avoiding the serious need for this discussion as well as a decision. However, we should bear in mind that this decision (no matter which payment option is accepted for this year) will require $90,995, or more, every year to come or until a different plan is put in place. It is a decision that requires citizens to put our money where our mouths are.
It requires that we all ask every single question we can think of.
We have to hope there will be answers that suffice, not only from one selectman who often gives the impression he feels he alone has all the answers anyone may need, but from all elected officials, the town manager, and, most specifically, Chief Frost, and any others who may have been involved in doing studies with him on this topic.
Article #5: the question of the legislative body of the town (the voters) setting the date when newly elected selectboard members are seated.
The issue in this article seems to focus on not accepting - in fact, rescinding - the vote of the legislative body (Paris voters) who, in 1999, exercised their option, as allowed by Title 30-A M.S.R.A. §2526, to set July 1 as the date newly elected members are to be seated.
One currently sitting selectman has been vigorously active in this question.
[ editor's note: TPR does not have an investment on when new members are seated. What matters is that the legislative body vote, and then the procedure is consistent each year.]
TPR would offer the following observations:
* that the settlement payment referred to in Article #2 was agreed on for a law suit having as its premise the binding nature of that legislative vote;
*The law firm of Kurtz & Perry gave a written opinion in a 2005 letter that the 1999 vote was not valid;
*Selectman Kurtz may still have an investment in protecting the conclusion his firm presented in that 2005 letter;
* Title 30-A M.R.S.A. §2526 includes several subsections, some rather general, and (1) it might be possible to cherry pick pertinent phrases of choice; and, (2) it might be possible to come up with an interpretation that could seem to provide an answer for more than one situation
* There are a few individuals in this community who may have their own personal reasons for wanting the 1999 vote to be officially rescinded, in order to validate some past personal action.
The pertinent point here is that there would be no reason for this question even being on the warrant of this special town meeting if the 1999 vote had no teeth.
Moral to this story? Do not be fooled by spin. Make your own decision.
