What you may not read about in the newspapers about the meeting tonight can be summed up under the umbrella of the need for connecting with people.
During Citizen's Comments there was a request, echoed by more than one person, to consider some enhanced publicizing for public hearings - for all town boards or committees, especially on topics that might prove controversial.
It is less likely that voters are apathetic about town matters or that they refuse to come out to public hearings; perhaps more likely, they simply may not know about a hearing, or plan, or decision.
If attendance is not high (or worse, nonexistent...) at forums where the public is actually allowed to speak, even though a publicizing plan for the forum is in place, then it cannot hurt to consider beefing up the publicizing.
The theme of communication with the public seemed destined to continue. Of the approximately 30 people in the audience tonight, a good 25 or so came to support - or respond to - a concern by several land owners on Parsons Road about noise from ATV's now regularly using part of the road as a result of an earlier ok by the selectboard. They felt that decisions had been made on top of them - that they had no say in it.
We as citizens don't like to feel we have been kept in the dark, or that something or someone might be infringing on our space - or that we don't matter.
But, tonight, several good things emerged as a special section of the meeting devoted to this topic unfolded.
It became obvious, as the discussion progressed, that one audience member representing one particular side of the issue, plus at least one board member, perhaps two, and the town manager had already talked and prearranged a little here and there.
Nevertheless, there was:
* an attempt to allow actual citizen input, even if a couple of people were stopped mid-sentence, and a couple more aggressive speakers just kept going and were not stopped;
*a tiny beginning of dialogue, not only between audience members with opposing views, but between some board members and audience speakers;
*a real move, by two board members, to connect with the people speaking, to the point where each of the two said, at different points during the session, in their own individual ways, that they were genuinely sorry about the situation.
*an interest by the Oxford ATV club, also the X-tra Mile ATV club, to try to work with the land owners; and the landowners, though standing their ground, accepted a 3 month period of adjustment, agreeing to a meeting early in December for a conclusion, and in the interim, a meeting of landowners and ATV club reps.
There are still a few facts that need to be double-checked about what was actually said at the original meeting and voted on.
There is more facilitating needed between those who make the rules and those who are affected by them. There was too much quoting of law.... not a useful tool in discussions like tonight's....
...and a little arrogance and patronizing that needs tempering....
But this town, any town, is about people - laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances notwithstanding. Making this town work is about valuing the people in the town. All of them, not just the convenient or the loud or the intimidating. The laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances - and all the rest - will fit in as the people allow them to.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Discussion and action
Monday August 23 at 7 PM Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office. Agenda here.
Items of interest:
*No mention of an executive session. # 16 refers to "the process of evaluation of the town manager."
*Category for "Selectmen concerns/requests" continues to be at or near the end of the agenda. Since meetings have run long, many attendees have already left. Some board member comments have been relevant to pertinent issues - one or two even provoking a conversation by tired board members at a very late hour - and would have been of interest to voters.
If the selectboard is not required to put their concerns before the public as items specifically listed on the agenda, perhaps the category might be moved up just after citizen comments? If the category is important enough to include, why not have it heard?
Or leave it off; and have selectboard concerns included as regular agenda items.
*Always a point of interest that important issues - perhaps controversial items - requiring discussion, like # 16, are pushed way to the end. Fewer citizens stay through to the end of these longer meetings.
There will always be a certain few who stay, however. No matter how late. This town belongs to all of us, and it's better to know more, rather than less, about what goes on inside our municipal machine.... and about the people running it.
Items of interest:
*No mention of an executive session. # 16 refers to "the process of evaluation of the town manager."
*Category for "Selectmen concerns/requests" continues to be at or near the end of the agenda. Since meetings have run long, many attendees have already left. Some board member comments have been relevant to pertinent issues - one or two even provoking a conversation by tired board members at a very late hour - and would have been of interest to voters.
If the selectboard is not required to put their concerns before the public as items specifically listed on the agenda, perhaps the category might be moved up just after citizen comments? If the category is important enough to include, why not have it heard?
Or leave it off; and have selectboard concerns included as regular agenda items.
*Always a point of interest that important issues - perhaps controversial items - requiring discussion, like # 16, are pushed way to the end. Fewer citizens stay through to the end of these longer meetings.
There will always be a certain few who stay, however. No matter how late. This town belongs to all of us, and it's better to know more, rather than less, about what goes on inside our municipal machine.... and about the people running it.
Monday, August 16, 2010
What public?
Public information.
In the context of a board discussion about an upcoming 6-month evaluation of the town manager, the previous posting referred to laws that facilitate the public's access to information that is about us, or is relevant to us, but that is not always available to us as citizens and taxpayers.
At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966, provides guidelines and directions for federal agencies to maintain records, and make them available to the public under certain circumstances.
Also at the federal level, in 1974, the Privacy Acts Amendments were to allow individual citizens to see records about themselves from federal investigative agencies, e.g., FBI, US Customs & Border Protection, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, passed in 1975, covers access to both public proceedings and public records. The law is often called the "Right-to-Know Law." It indicates that public proceedings exist to aid in conducting the public's business; that, in public proceedings (e.g., a town's selectboard or council meeting), actions are to be taken openly; that records are to be open to inspection; and that deliberations are to be conducted, for the most part, openly.
[editor's note: TPR refers readers to Findlaw.com as well as Wikipedia.org for more information on the 3 laws referred to here.]
These laws exist to protect the right of individuals to have access to information that can affect their lives. There are things that people need to know and understand directly. One of the costs of having someone else tell us what we "need to know" is that we become subject to someone else's agenda.
Concerning the FOAA, there are exceptions to "conducted openly," and they come in section 405, Executive Sessions. There are certain categories of discussion that are considered sensitive and are allowed to be held away from the public. The discussions are circumscribed however, to minimize keeping things secret from the public.
For example, discussions of sensitive personnel matters that could damage a person's reputation could be handled in executive session; but, any kind of action following such discussions can only be handled in open session.
At the 8-09-10 selectboard meeting there was mention of an evaluation form to be filled out by each board member in preparation for this evaluation of the town manager. The question was asked: can information placed on each individual form be shared with the other board members ahead of time? In other words, to be sure everyone is "on the same page," can there be a private discussion among board members before the conversation with the town manager?
It might well be that, when a group of people is evaluating one person, there is a need to have a private, fact gathering discussion outside the presence of the person to be evaluated. To make that logistically possible, a meeting without the manager and the public may have to take place.
Red flag:
* An executive session announced to discuss the manager's contract, and an immediate demand for another executive session to prepare for it.
There may well be a world of difference in the actual evaluation in this upcoming session vs the "evaluation" S. Jackson received 6-22-09. But a week ago, 8-09-10, in that room, more than one person squirmed.
Think about this: how would we know if there was something going on with an employee hired by officials we have elected? How can we be certain we are being told the whole story? If all discussion occurs in executive session, and we see only the results, how are we going to learn the whole truth? How do we know, and how do we learn, to trust?
There is a long way to go before there are enough trusting citizens in the town of Paris who are going to swallow explanations given by any board member just quoting laws - or before board members receive an automatic benefit of the doubt on important issues.
Trust is earned by actions, not words alone. And it is in short supply, if board members look around at - and listen to - many of the people who put them in office.
It is not a successful ploy to quote laws ad nauseam.
A minority of board members listen for the question behind the question - not just the part that can be used for pontificating or bullying.
Others need to watch and learn.
In the context of a board discussion about an upcoming 6-month evaluation of the town manager, the previous posting referred to laws that facilitate the public's access to information that is about us, or is relevant to us, but that is not always available to us as citizens and taxpayers.
At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966, provides guidelines and directions for federal agencies to maintain records, and make them available to the public under certain circumstances.
Also at the federal level, in 1974, the Privacy Acts Amendments were to allow individual citizens to see records about themselves from federal investigative agencies, e.g., FBI, US Customs & Border Protection, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, passed in 1975, covers access to both public proceedings and public records. The law is often called the "Right-to-Know Law." It indicates that public proceedings exist to aid in conducting the public's business; that, in public proceedings (e.g., a town's selectboard or council meeting), actions are to be taken openly; that records are to be open to inspection; and that deliberations are to be conducted, for the most part, openly.
[editor's note: TPR refers readers to Findlaw.com as well as Wikipedia.org for more information on the 3 laws referred to here.]
These laws exist to protect the right of individuals to have access to information that can affect their lives. There are things that people need to know and understand directly. One of the costs of having someone else tell us what we "need to know" is that we become subject to someone else's agenda.
Concerning the FOAA, there are exceptions to "conducted openly," and they come in section 405, Executive Sessions. There are certain categories of discussion that are considered sensitive and are allowed to be held away from the public. The discussions are circumscribed however, to minimize keeping things secret from the public.
For example, discussions of sensitive personnel matters that could damage a person's reputation could be handled in executive session; but, any kind of action following such discussions can only be handled in open session.
At the 8-09-10 selectboard meeting there was mention of an evaluation form to be filled out by each board member in preparation for this evaluation of the town manager. The question was asked: can information placed on each individual form be shared with the other board members ahead of time? In other words, to be sure everyone is "on the same page," can there be a private discussion among board members before the conversation with the town manager?
It might well be that, when a group of people is evaluating one person, there is a need to have a private, fact gathering discussion outside the presence of the person to be evaluated. To make that logistically possible, a meeting without the manager and the public may have to take place.
Red flag:
* An executive session announced to discuss the manager's contract, and an immediate demand for another executive session to prepare for it.
There may well be a world of difference in the actual evaluation in this upcoming session vs the "evaluation" S. Jackson received 6-22-09. But a week ago, 8-09-10, in that room, more than one person squirmed.
Think about this: how would we know if there was something going on with an employee hired by officials we have elected? How can we be certain we are being told the whole story? If all discussion occurs in executive session, and we see only the results, how are we going to learn the whole truth? How do we know, and how do we learn, to trust?
There is a long way to go before there are enough trusting citizens in the town of Paris who are going to swallow explanations given by any board member just quoting laws - or before board members receive an automatic benefit of the doubt on important issues.
Trust is earned by actions, not words alone. And it is in short supply, if board members look around at - and listen to - many of the people who put them in office.
It is not a successful ploy to quote laws ad nauseam.
A minority of board members listen for the question behind the question - not just the part that can be used for pontificating or bullying.
Others need to watch and learn.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Business, taxes, and public information
Regular stuff of municipal life.
Paris selectboard dealt with regular business last night: authorizing payroll, paying bills, filling vacancies on town committees. All of this information is on record and can be examined if any citizen is interested. Most aren't interested because the information is pretty mundane, complex, and there is an awful lot of it.
Taxes. Always there, a larger burden or a smaller one.... Mil rate, overlay, clear understandings of implications and explanations...
...TPR might take a look at those.
As for public information: now there's an issue. It is an interesting point that the media becomes the most vocal operative on that issue - perhaps because information is their bread and butter. It has to be said that sometimes the public media has been a sad source of public betrayal.
However, the fact remains that the issue - of information about and pertinent to the public being made available to the public - is so critical that laws have been crafted at both the state and federal level as vehicles for the public to have access to information that has in the past been hidden - and could easily still be.
The US Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, U.S.C.,§552) passed in 1974, and Maine's Freedom of Access Act (Title 1, M.R.S.A., §401,et.seq.) passed in 1975, are operative pieces of legislation. Although there are times when it really is necessary to protect a sensitive situation from premature release of information, there are countless attempts to manipulate and block information by blanket phrases like "national security," "privileged information," "need to know," and more.
Or
the suggestion that was thrown about at last night's meeting by one selectman, in reference to an employee evaluation coming up - having an executive session [editor's note: secret] to be sure each selectperson is in accord before meeting with the employee.
Does this remind Paris voters of a situation in this town 6-22-09? .
TPR will visit this topic in more detail.
Paris selectboard dealt with regular business last night: authorizing payroll, paying bills, filling vacancies on town committees. All of this information is on record and can be examined if any citizen is interested. Most aren't interested because the information is pretty mundane, complex, and there is an awful lot of it.
Taxes. Always there, a larger burden or a smaller one.... Mil rate, overlay, clear understandings of implications and explanations...
...TPR might take a look at those.
As for public information: now there's an issue. It is an interesting point that the media becomes the most vocal operative on that issue - perhaps because information is their bread and butter. It has to be said that sometimes the public media has been a sad source of public betrayal.
However, the fact remains that the issue - of information about and pertinent to the public being made available to the public - is so critical that laws have been crafted at both the state and federal level as vehicles for the public to have access to information that has in the past been hidden - and could easily still be.
The US Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, U.S.C.,§552) passed in 1974, and Maine's Freedom of Access Act (Title 1, M.R.S.A., §401,et.seq.) passed in 1975, are operative pieces of legislation. Although there are times when it really is necessary to protect a sensitive situation from premature release of information, there are countless attempts to manipulate and block information by blanket phrases like "national security," "privileged information," "need to know," and more.
Or
the suggestion that was thrown about at last night's meeting by one selectman, in reference to an employee evaluation coming up - having an executive session [editor's note: secret] to be sure each selectperson is in accord before meeting with the employee.
Does this remind Paris voters of a situation in this town 6-22-09? .
TPR will visit this topic in more detail.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
At the 2-week mark
So. Did the special town meeting on July 26th accomplish what it set out to do? About 70 Paris voters made the time to come to the Paris Fire Station in the middle of summer to do their part. Not to mention the town office staff who repeatedly have been pressed into extra service in recent weeks.
There were informed citizens who spoke out and asked pertinent questions. This is what should happen; and it did. The meeting moved according to protocol, and rudeness did not slow things down as it did at the annual town meeting in June. Bravo, Moderator Vern Maxfield.
The 4 items on the agenda were not block busters: the medical marijuana issue has never been fully discussed in public, despite the public hearing opportunity that felt like it was slipped in one day just before a selectboard meeting. The decision to go with a moratorium has only postponed any real decision making.
The payment to the former town manager did not need to be on the warrant at all - in the form that it appeared - to be voted on by anybody [editor's note: the only thing the selectboard needed from the public was the ok to release the funds from one budget source or another]; though there was a palpable force in the room when the unanimous "yes" vote was taken, lest the selectboard lose heart and default on their long-time-in-coming decision.
The Paris fire department. How can we not be supportive...how can we not think that Chief Frost has the best interest of this town in his thinking...how can we not bite the bullet and cough up the funds necessary? It would seem that some people think there is some other way to protect us and our homes...? Perhaps they will be more forthcoming in the Monday night meeting.... So the decision to go with Chief Frost's request - supported by some on the selectboard - to accept a portion of the fire fighters as regularly paid employees - still faces some challenges.
TPR feels that each individual voter must make his or her own decision on this and all matters. It would seem obvious who cares about this town, and who has an individual perspective with a personal spotlight attached.
And then there is the decision on when an elected selectboard official takes office. Just get on with it. Pick a date - stick with it, move on. The lawsuit is done; there is no need to fiddle around any more. The voters attending did just that - they voted, and showed every intention of moving on.
There followed the regular selectboard meeting: selections for committees; arguments for why this or that should happen or not.
And now we are at the 2-week mark in the month: where the selectboard meets again, giving the public a window on who they are, how they work, and what is really at stake in how our town is run....on our dollar.
Monday, August 9th, Paris town office, selectboard meets at 7 pm. Agenda here. Come if you can. Decisions are made that we pay for - one way or another.
There were informed citizens who spoke out and asked pertinent questions. This is what should happen; and it did. The meeting moved according to protocol, and rudeness did not slow things down as it did at the annual town meeting in June. Bravo, Moderator Vern Maxfield.
The 4 items on the agenda were not block busters: the medical marijuana issue has never been fully discussed in public, despite the public hearing opportunity that felt like it was slipped in one day just before a selectboard meeting. The decision to go with a moratorium has only postponed any real decision making.
The payment to the former town manager did not need to be on the warrant at all - in the form that it appeared - to be voted on by anybody [editor's note: the only thing the selectboard needed from the public was the ok to release the funds from one budget source or another]; though there was a palpable force in the room when the unanimous "yes" vote was taken, lest the selectboard lose heart and default on their long-time-in-coming decision.
The Paris fire department. How can we not be supportive...how can we not think that Chief Frost has the best interest of this town in his thinking...how can we not bite the bullet and cough up the funds necessary? It would seem that some people think there is some other way to protect us and our homes...? Perhaps they will be more forthcoming in the Monday night meeting.... So the decision to go with Chief Frost's request - supported by some on the selectboard - to accept a portion of the fire fighters as regularly paid employees - still faces some challenges.
TPR feels that each individual voter must make his or her own decision on this and all matters. It would seem obvious who cares about this town, and who has an individual perspective with a personal spotlight attached.
And then there is the decision on when an elected selectboard official takes office. Just get on with it. Pick a date - stick with it, move on. The lawsuit is done; there is no need to fiddle around any more. The voters attending did just that - they voted, and showed every intention of moving on.
There followed the regular selectboard meeting: selections for committees; arguments for why this or that should happen or not.
And now we are at the 2-week mark in the month: where the selectboard meets again, giving the public a window on who they are, how they work, and what is really at stake in how our town is run....on our dollar.
Monday, August 9th, Paris town office, selectboard meets at 7 pm. Agenda here. Come if you can. Decisions are made that we pay for - one way or another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)