...9-29-10, at 6:30 PM at the Paris fire station, the combined selectboards of Norway and Paris, as well as the Norway-Paris Solid Waste board, will meet to discuss the merits of single stream recycling as a form of waste management. Public is invited.
Paris town manager P. Tarr, also currently the chairman of the NPSW board, was wondering at the Paris selectboard meeting Monday, what the public would have to say.
Unfortunately, most folks might know something about solid waste management in general, but certainly far less about single stream recycling in particular.
Generally speaking, what we think of as garbage items would still have to be dealt with in their own way; but recyclable items would have a new way of being handled.
A general understanding of single stream might be, at a rudimentary level of explanation, that all recyclable items would be received into one huge receptacle, then shipped off to a huge sorting plant, sorted by machine, and then disposed of from there; vs. sorting glass from metals from paper, etc, as many of us do individually now, and then disposing of the results in various ways.
Some starter questions might be:
*If there is money to be made from this kind of solid waste management operation, where would it go?
*If, at the magical sorting center, things don't happen to get all sorted properly (there is mention of some things "falling through the cracks") what are the ecological ramifications, historically, with this kind of set up?
*What will happen to the set up we already have, the various components, the workers, the sites, etc?
*Is the Norway-Paris community doing such a poor job of sorting our solid waste that there is need to just put everything in a big bin and ship it off somewhere else to be sorted?
And, lest anyone think this is not about money, because a certain individual said plainly at a combined waste management meeting in spring 2010 that "There's a lot of money to be made in waste management...." let's be certain to double check:
*Who stands to profit?
*Is it only about money?
None of these questions is intended to infer that anything underhanded is afoot. But there is a huge empty space where general public information needs to be happening on this topic; citizens should be very concerned that no commitment is made anywhere until we are fully educated and are in a position to make an informed vote.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Items covered
Smaller group tonight. Nasty weather. 6 - 8 concerned citizens; five stalwart selectpersons; one town manager; one hard working town clerk; two newspaper reporters...
...and the welcome presence of NPCTV. Again, and still. For double checking facts or discussions, there is nothing like seeing and hearing things - again. In addition, for the not-faint-of-heart, any citizen at large who cannot easily get out to a meeting, but cares about how our town is being run, can see things in real time. Such citizens make phone calls, often use email, and more than one might think, have considerable networks. Good to remember...
The Sun Journal and the Advertiser Democrat will no doubt give more than adequate coverage to the actual business conducted in tonight's board meeting. TPR offers what the late radio commentator Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story."
As noted in the previous posting, certain timely items were not included formally in the agenda.
Items covered that weren't listed: (see previous posting)
*The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads. Action will most assuredly be addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard. In fact, Selectperson Smart found that the minutes of selectboard meeting 9-13-10, stating Selectman Herrick's motion to address the action taken, were not quite adequate. Transcript of the 9-13-10 meeting in hand, she requested that the additional words be added.
Below are the words from the minutes of the 13th, (A) , followed by the 2 sections of the actual motion, in red. (B)
In response to a request from two landowners to reconsider a vote taken in June 2010 to approve ATV usage for Parson's Road:
(A) A motion was made by Mr. Herrick to move the meeting scheduled for December 13, 2010 to October 25, 2010.
Selectperson Smart's expanded inclusion for the minutes, to be added and approved at the next meeting:
(B)Selectman Herrick: I make a motion that we postpone this issue that we originally voted on last meeting, and move it up to a date in October to discuss further action on this issue.
After that meeting, after that stake holder meeting, after that stake holder meeting is done and over with the town manager, then we, at one of our dated meetings for the month, will discuss the outcome of the results of that meeting. But October 25th, we will revisit, and hopefully that will make the decision whether we rescind our vote in June - or what actually will fly.
*6 month evaluation of the town manager.
Chairman Glover: "We must set a time and a place for... [editor's note: "for" more discussion than the executive session on September 8th evidently allowed, plus preparation for] the evaluation of the town manager. Then we have to set a date to meet with Phil and deliver the evaluation."
It would appear that this event will actually transpire. Sooner rather than later. Somewhere in October, maybe?
*The undesignated fund balance. Yes. What about this?
...and the welcome presence of NPCTV. Again, and still. For double checking facts or discussions, there is nothing like seeing and hearing things - again. In addition, for the not-faint-of-heart, any citizen at large who cannot easily get out to a meeting, but cares about how our town is being run, can see things in real time. Such citizens make phone calls, often use email, and more than one might think, have considerable networks. Good to remember...
The Sun Journal and the Advertiser Democrat will no doubt give more than adequate coverage to the actual business conducted in tonight's board meeting. TPR offers what the late radio commentator Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story."
As noted in the previous posting, certain timely items were not included formally in the agenda.
Items covered that weren't listed: (see previous posting)
*The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads. Action will most assuredly be addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard. In fact, Selectperson Smart found that the minutes of selectboard meeting 9-13-10, stating Selectman Herrick's motion to address the action taken, were not quite adequate. Transcript of the 9-13-10 meeting in hand, she requested that the additional words be added.
Below are the words from the minutes of the 13th, (A) , followed by the 2 sections of the actual motion, in red. (B)
In response to a request from two landowners to reconsider a vote taken in June 2010 to approve ATV usage for Parson's Road:
(A) A motion was made by Mr. Herrick to move the meeting scheduled for December 13, 2010 to October 25, 2010.
Selectperson Smart's expanded inclusion for the minutes, to be added and approved at the next meeting:
(B)Selectman Herrick: I make a motion that we postpone this issue that we originally voted on last meeting, and move it up to a date in October to discuss further action on this issue.
After that meeting, after that stake holder meeting, after that stake holder meeting is done and over with the town manager, then we, at one of our dated meetings for the month, will discuss the outcome of the results of that meeting. But October 25th, we will revisit, and hopefully that will make the decision whether we rescind our vote in June - or what actually will fly.
*6 month evaluation of the town manager.
Chairman Glover: "We must set a time and a place for... [editor's note: "for" more discussion than the executive session on September 8th evidently allowed, plus preparation for] the evaluation of the town manager. Then we have to set a date to meet with Phil and deliver the evaluation."
It would appear that this event will actually transpire. Sooner rather than later. Somewhere in October, maybe?
*The undesignated fund balance. Yes. What about this?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
By their omission
Monday 9-27-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office, 7 PM. Agenda here. Items of business for our town.
Some timely topics, however, do not appear to be formally included on the agenda... such as:
* Paris town manager P. Tarr and his adjoining role as president of the Norway Paris Solid Waste Board. Not to comment on the effect of Tarr's work on the NPSW.
But, to comment on the question of whether this role has taken him away from duties for which he is currently paid - by us - namely, the administrative duties for the Town of Paris. Have others in the office staff been left to carry out the duties he is supposed to cover? Do we know the answer to that? You sure?
* This undesignated fund balance that is evidently supposed to be paying for all the un-planned-for expenses in the town - mentioned by our town manager from time to time as the ultimate source needed to cover municipal needs here and there....
What is the balance, as a matter of fact? Who is monitoring that? Does everyone understand the standard protocol and recommended procedure for how the undesignated fund balance is intended to work? There are some of us who do....
* The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads who met Thursday 9-23-10. Hopefully the next steps will be outlined in this venue at some point. Those who attended that meeting, described quite accurately in the Sun Journal Friday 9-24-10, already know, but action has not yet been addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard.
*The 6 month evaluation of the town manager. No less than 2 selectboard meetings (8-23-10 and 8-09-10) and one special executive session (9-08-10) have been devoted to it. What's happening? Is there to be a 6 month evaluation or not? P. Tarr was hired in January 2010. We are only 3 months shy of January. For all the discussion and apparent concern, we are getting closer to a full year, here. There has not been a 6-month evaluation for any town manager recently. What's up? Or was up and isn't anymore? Or isn't going to be... etc....
Some citizens don't notice these things. Others do. And then they remind others....
Some timely topics, however, do not appear to be formally included on the agenda... such as:
* Paris town manager P. Tarr and his adjoining role as president of the Norway Paris Solid Waste Board. Not to comment on the effect of Tarr's work on the NPSW.
But, to comment on the question of whether this role has taken him away from duties for which he is currently paid - by us - namely, the administrative duties for the Town of Paris. Have others in the office staff been left to carry out the duties he is supposed to cover? Do we know the answer to that? You sure?
* This undesignated fund balance that is evidently supposed to be paying for all the un-planned-for expenses in the town - mentioned by our town manager from time to time as the ultimate source needed to cover municipal needs here and there....
What is the balance, as a matter of fact? Who is monitoring that? Does everyone understand the standard protocol and recommended procedure for how the undesignated fund balance is intended to work? There are some of us who do....
* The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads who met Thursday 9-23-10. Hopefully the next steps will be outlined in this venue at some point. Those who attended that meeting, described quite accurately in the Sun Journal Friday 9-24-10, already know, but action has not yet been addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard.
*The 6 month evaluation of the town manager. No less than 2 selectboard meetings (8-23-10 and 8-09-10) and one special executive session (9-08-10) have been devoted to it. What's happening? Is there to be a 6 month evaluation or not? P. Tarr was hired in January 2010. We are only 3 months shy of January. For all the discussion and apparent concern, we are getting closer to a full year, here. There has not been a 6-month evaluation for any town manager recently. What's up? Or was up and isn't anymore? Or isn't going to be... etc....
Some citizens don't notice these things. Others do. And then they remind others....
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Who will come?
Thursday September 23 at 5:30 PM at the Paris fire station there will be a meeting of ATV operators, and landowners who live on any roads involved in the recent decision handed down by the town giving ATV operators permission to use certain public roads as cross-over means to connect to off-road trails. (see previous TPR posting Same process for everybody, 9-15-1010.)
It is the understanding of TPR that Parsons Road, Elm Hill Road, Brett Hill Road are involved. It is also TPR's understanding that relevant parties were notified by the town about the meeting. The voting public at large, in the town of Paris, is welcome as well.
One hopes that will include at least some of Paris' selectboard members. Information gleaned at tomorrow's meeting should prove most informative, and would assist them in their efforts to respond effectively in their October 25 deliberations and public discussion (referred to above in TPR's previous posting.)
It is also to be hoped that, if the town manager is going to be the mediator/facilitator of this discussion, he has done his homework and is fully prepared.
No decision will be forthcoming at the end of this meeting; but there are very strong feelings on both sides of the question, not the least of which have been caused by the lack of a proper public discussion with all stakeholders long before decisions were made by the town and things worked themselves into a potentially explosive situation.
Word is that an elected official, or two, at the state level, have been invited. Someone, it would seem, feels that there might be a serious - or at least noteworthy - discussion Thursday at 5:30.
Come and see.
It is the understanding of TPR that Parsons Road, Elm Hill Road, Brett Hill Road are involved. It is also TPR's understanding that relevant parties were notified by the town about the meeting. The voting public at large, in the town of Paris, is welcome as well.
One hopes that will include at least some of Paris' selectboard members. Information gleaned at tomorrow's meeting should prove most informative, and would assist them in their efforts to respond effectively in their October 25 deliberations and public discussion (referred to above in TPR's previous posting.)
It is also to be hoped that, if the town manager is going to be the mediator/facilitator of this discussion, he has done his homework and is fully prepared.
No decision will be forthcoming at the end of this meeting; but there are very strong feelings on both sides of the question, not the least of which have been caused by the lack of a proper public discussion with all stakeholders long before decisions were made by the town and things worked themselves into a potentially explosive situation.
Word is that an elected official, or two, at the state level, have been invited. Someone, it would seem, feels that there might be a serious - or at least noteworthy - discussion Thursday at 5:30.
Come and see.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Same process for everybody
Monday's Paris selectboard meeting hosted well over 45 folks: reporters and cameraman; officials at the front table; a sizeable representation of ATV owners, club members as well as individuals; a smaller representation of landowners along the Parsons Road where the ATV route crosses between trails; and the 7-8 regulars who continue to exercise their general interest in municipal proceedings as Paris voters.
Agenda item #8, to consider a process for group - or individual - requests for access to public roads or property, was very timely.
After a lengthy discussion including fair opportunity for each side of the question, it seemed clear to uninvolved (albeit not uncaring) listeners in the audience that there had been no process at all, just information presented, several people doing homework, some more, or less, than others.
But without specific directions, a workable solution has less chance of emerging; expectations can not possibly be clear. Even if the old saying "You can't please everyone" keeps cropping up, at least if there was a clear directive that spoke to all parties concerned, there would be fewer surprises on all sides.
Consider: a speed limit of 35mph on Any Imaginary Road. Who hasn't traveled more than 35 mph on such a road when conditions seemed to merit? And who has had any success arguing with an officer of the law if stopped ? There are really no surprises when the rule is clear.
Otherwise, without a clear process, the citizens of this town - be they recreational groups, landowners, or elected officials trying to iron things out - are faced with re-inventing the wheel every time a new concern erupts, just like we have in the current road use issue.
Quoting the existing laws is not the answer. There seem to be other steps necessary, because there are unresolved issues here.
More homework, or perhaps more awareness all around, might have helped prevent the serious concerns and anger threatening to break loose. Maybe. But without a workable tool, there is too much open to interpretation, too much ambiguity. And the result is that no one is really protected - on any side.
So. There are evidently plans in the works for concerned parties to meet - imminently - with the town manager, to gather information that will be used in a selectboard discussion at the October 25 selectboard meeting, rather than the December 13 meeting as previously stated.
This seems to be a reasonable step toward a solution. Citizens on all sides deserve to have the hearing they should have had before any decision was officially made.
Note: there will need to be skillful and careful facilitation, by an individual both sides of the question can trust, in the sharing of comments. Although both sides need to have their interests well represented, packing the room with hundreds on one side and 15 on the other side will not make the solution more workable - it will simply appear as a threat, people will dig in their heels; and there will be no solution at all.
Only rampant anger. We've had that in this town before, and it does not work.
There has to be a process crafted that makes absolutely clear what is being asked and who is responsible, #1; a meeting of all stakeholders must be set up, #2; then, and only then, should the selectboard become involved to have their input and discussion, and take their action.
Agenda item #8, to consider a process for group - or individual - requests for access to public roads or property, was very timely.
After a lengthy discussion including fair opportunity for each side of the question, it seemed clear to uninvolved (albeit not uncaring) listeners in the audience that there had been no process at all, just information presented, several people doing homework, some more, or less, than others.
But without specific directions, a workable solution has less chance of emerging; expectations can not possibly be clear. Even if the old saying "You can't please everyone" keeps cropping up, at least if there was a clear directive that spoke to all parties concerned, there would be fewer surprises on all sides.
Consider: a speed limit of 35mph on Any Imaginary Road. Who hasn't traveled more than 35 mph on such a road when conditions seemed to merit? And who has had any success arguing with an officer of the law if stopped ? There are really no surprises when the rule is clear.
Otherwise, without a clear process, the citizens of this town - be they recreational groups, landowners, or elected officials trying to iron things out - are faced with re-inventing the wheel every time a new concern erupts, just like we have in the current road use issue.
Quoting the existing laws is not the answer. There seem to be other steps necessary, because there are unresolved issues here.
More homework, or perhaps more awareness all around, might have helped prevent the serious concerns and anger threatening to break loose. Maybe. But without a workable tool, there is too much open to interpretation, too much ambiguity. And the result is that no one is really protected - on any side.
So. There are evidently plans in the works for concerned parties to meet - imminently - with the town manager, to gather information that will be used in a selectboard discussion at the October 25 selectboard meeting, rather than the December 13 meeting as previously stated.
This seems to be a reasonable step toward a solution. Citizens on all sides deserve to have the hearing they should have had before any decision was officially made.
Note: there will need to be skillful and careful facilitation, by an individual both sides of the question can trust, in the sharing of comments. Although both sides need to have their interests well represented, packing the room with hundreds on one side and 15 on the other side will not make the solution more workable - it will simply appear as a threat, people will dig in their heels; and there will be no solution at all.
Only rampant anger. We've had that in this town before, and it does not work.
There has to be a process crafted that makes absolutely clear what is being asked and who is responsible, #1; a meeting of all stakeholders must be set up, #2; then, and only then, should the selectboard become involved to have their input and discussion, and take their action.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The business of the town...
...continues to happen and decisions get made that affect us all. Monday 9-13-10 Paris selectboard meets at 7 pm, town office. Agenda posted here.
Consider item #7: a request to reconsider a vote taken on 6/28/10 re. public road usage by ATVs. [editor's note: 6/28/10, item #15 was Discussion and action on ATV club road usage. A verbal request was presented by the X-tra Mile ATV club, along with a copy of their letter sent to land owners. A map outlining the plans involved was presented as well. Full information could be found on the NPC-TV recording, for that date.]
[editor's note: 8/23/10: The same issue was addressed again, this time by some of the land owners who were not pleased with the activity that resulted from the decision on 6-28. This 9-13 meeting will be the 3rd time the issue of ATV's using certain public roads in Paris has been addressed.]
When questions are brought to the selectboard, citizens are looking for a public decision that will be in keeping with the rules that are set up to govern the town. Sometimes the processes we need are not as clear as they should be - sometimes they are even non-existent. Sometimes laws and ordinances involved don't cover the issues as adequately as they need to, and ambiguity allows for misunderstandings.
Misunderstandings grow and fester, and need to be addressed immediately and fairly. One would trust that our public officials will listen with unbiased ears, and allow for the possibility that additional action might need to be considered.
This town belongs to all of us - officials, landowners, recreational groups - taxpayers all.
Consider item #7: a request to reconsider a vote taken on 6/28/10 re. public road usage by ATVs. [editor's note: 6/28/10, item #15 was Discussion and action on ATV club road usage. A verbal request was presented by the X-tra Mile ATV club, along with a copy of their letter sent to land owners. A map outlining the plans involved was presented as well. Full information could be found on the NPC-TV recording, for that date.]
[editor's note: 8/23/10: The same issue was addressed again, this time by some of the land owners who were not pleased with the activity that resulted from the decision on 6-28. This 9-13 meeting will be the 3rd time the issue of ATV's using certain public roads in Paris has been addressed.]
When questions are brought to the selectboard, citizens are looking for a public decision that will be in keeping with the rules that are set up to govern the town. Sometimes the processes we need are not as clear as they should be - sometimes they are even non-existent. Sometimes laws and ordinances involved don't cover the issues as adequately as they need to, and ambiguity allows for misunderstandings.
Misunderstandings grow and fester, and need to be addressed immediately and fairly. One would trust that our public officials will listen with unbiased ears, and allow for the possibility that additional action might need to be considered.
This town belongs to all of us - officials, landowners, recreational groups - taxpayers all.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
There's an agenda?
A few excerpts of dialogue here from the first 12 minutes or so of the special meeting of Paris selectboard, Wednesday evening, 9-08-10.
Actually, from a few minutes before the meeting started, because a citizen in the audience asked if she could ask a question right then, knowing there were no citizen comments after the meeting started. Permission was granted.
[editor's note: The following are excerpts, taken, in order, from an audio tape recording of the public session of the meeting. The entire transcript of that recording is not included here in the defense of public sanity.]
Citizen: "What is this meeting tonight about?" [editor's note: as published in the agenda last TPR posting, the agenda item read; "Enter into Executive Session - ...to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager." ]
Chairman Glover: "...discuss the process, or how to do an evaluation, or discuss the evaluation, or...do an evaluation...."
Selectwoman Smart: "I thought we were, tonight, going to talk about the process we were going to use -because, remember, that's why we... "
Chair. G.: "Well, that's what...the agenda item says..."
Chair G.: ..."But I agree if we're just talking about a process, it does not require an executive session."
Citizen: "...and how does that... "
Chair G.:"But, I don't believe that this group is going to not say something on a personal basis to... hmm...the person that we're evaluating. And if we're discussing the person to be evaluated, then that needs to be in executive session."
Sel. S.: "Well, I thought we were not discussing the person; we were only setting up a process designing, with..."
Chair G: "..I had a process set up the first meeting this was brought up. But, then, we kept getting questions, after questions, after questions, and I finally said, well, let's have a special meeting to decide how we're going to do it."
Selectman Kurtz: "I made the offhand comment a few meetings ago that maybe...if we had a meeting among ourselves before we met with the town manager...instead of walking into the room for the very first time with the other select people, not having said anything to them, not having any idea how [names each board member] feels; I just come and just talk and everybody says what he or she feels and we get a hodgepodge."
Chair G.: [talking over Sel. Kurtz's comments above, who then talked over Ch. Glover, both then talking simultaneously] " That's why the forms were provided to everybody - because it's a formal process of just sending out a questionnaire. It's not as unstructured as you intimate."
Citizen: "But you don't seem to be on the same page as to what's going to happen this evening."
Discussion continued. Meeting still not started. Confusion was mounting ....
Citizen: "Ted...are you looking to change the evaluation form as it sits?"
Sel. K.: "No."
Citizen: "Then it isn't about the process - it's about discussing."
Sel K: "My reason is to have a discussion in executive session about the town manager. I could care less about the form."
The meeting did officially open, with pledge of allegiance and all, and then the discussion continued, because, after all there was... an agenda...
Process? No process? evaluation? comments that need to NOT be shared with the public? Well, an executive session had been warranted, as two board members pointed out, and somehow there had to be a way to get this thing off the ground.
Sel. K.:"I move we enter executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405 (6)(A) to discuss to - all ramifications of the evaluation of the town manager."
Motion was seconded; discussion; Selectman Herrick and Selectwoman Smart tried to get information straight and Chairman Glover tried to make it clear he just didn't know what was going to happen.
Chair. G.: "I honestly can't tell you what the agenda really is going to turn out to be - that's half the problem."
Time was passing. Chairman Glover finally referenced the motion - twice:
"...we do have a motion and a second on the floor to enter executive session."
Then,
"I will call for the vote: All those in favor of going into executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405(6)(A), raise your right hand."
No restating Selectman Kurtz's actual motion; no restatement of the original agenda item that started this whole business. Just plain old "executive session."
The vote to go into executive session passed 4-1, selectwoman Smart voting against.
So they met. And they discussed the proverbial "Whatever.. "
Three questions:
*What happened here?
*Why didn't the agenda simply state that the topic to justify going into an executive session was to prepare for the evaluation of the town manager?
and.....
*What's up with the town manager anyway?
Actually, from a few minutes before the meeting started, because a citizen in the audience asked if she could ask a question right then, knowing there were no citizen comments after the meeting started. Permission was granted.
[editor's note: The following are excerpts, taken, in order, from an audio tape recording of the public session of the meeting. The entire transcript of that recording is not included here in the defense of public sanity.]
Citizen: "What is this meeting tonight about?" [editor's note: as published in the agenda last TPR posting, the agenda item read; "Enter into Executive Session - ...to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager." ]
Chairman Glover: "...discuss the process, or how to do an evaluation, or discuss the evaluation, or...do an evaluation...."
Selectwoman Smart: "I thought we were, tonight, going to talk about the process we were going to use -because, remember, that's why we... "
Chair. G.: "Well, that's what...the agenda item says..."
Chair G.: ..."But I agree if we're just talking about a process, it does not require an executive session."
Citizen: "...and how does that... "
Chair G.:"But, I don't believe that this group is going to not say something on a personal basis to... hmm...the person that we're evaluating. And if we're discussing the person to be evaluated, then that needs to be in executive session."
Sel. S.: "Well, I thought we were not discussing the person; we were only setting up a process designing, with..."
Chair G: "..I had a process set up the first meeting this was brought up. But, then, we kept getting questions, after questions, after questions, and I finally said, well, let's have a special meeting to decide how we're going to do it."
Selectman Kurtz: "I made the offhand comment a few meetings ago that maybe...if we had a meeting among ourselves before we met with the town manager...instead of walking into the room for the very first time with the other select people, not having said anything to them, not having any idea how [names each board member] feels; I just come and just talk and everybody says what he or she feels and we get a hodgepodge."
Chair G.: [talking over Sel. Kurtz's comments above, who then talked over Ch. Glover, both then talking simultaneously] " That's why the forms were provided to everybody - because it's a formal process of just sending out a questionnaire. It's not as unstructured as you intimate."
Citizen: "But you don't seem to be on the same page as to what's going to happen this evening."
Discussion continued. Meeting still not started. Confusion was mounting ....
Citizen: "Ted...are you looking to change the evaluation form as it sits?"
Sel. K.: "No."
Citizen: "Then it isn't about the process - it's about discussing."
Sel K: "My reason is to have a discussion in executive session about the town manager. I could care less about the form."
The meeting did officially open, with pledge of allegiance and all, and then the discussion continued, because, after all there was... an agenda...
Process? No process? evaluation? comments that need to NOT be shared with the public? Well, an executive session had been warranted, as two board members pointed out, and somehow there had to be a way to get this thing off the ground.
Sel. K.:"I move we enter executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405 (6)(A) to discuss to - all ramifications of the evaluation of the town manager."
Motion was seconded; discussion; Selectman Herrick and Selectwoman Smart tried to get information straight and Chairman Glover tried to make it clear he just didn't know what was going to happen.
Chair. G.: "I honestly can't tell you what the agenda really is going to turn out to be - that's half the problem."
Time was passing. Chairman Glover finally referenced the motion - twice:
"...we do have a motion and a second on the floor to enter executive session."
Then,
"I will call for the vote: All those in favor of going into executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405(6)(A), raise your right hand."
No restating Selectman Kurtz's actual motion; no restatement of the original agenda item that started this whole business. Just plain old "executive session."
The vote to go into executive session passed 4-1, selectwoman Smart voting against.
So they met. And they discussed the proverbial "Whatever.. "
Three questions:
*What happened here?
*Why didn't the agenda simply state that the topic to justify going into an executive session was to prepare for the evaluation of the town manager?
and.....
*What's up with the town manager anyway?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
An agenda...
...and a few questions.
At their special meeting Wednesday, 9-08-10, at 6:30 pm, Paris Selectboard will enter into executive session "to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager."
(see agenda)
Questions come to mind:
*"the process on how to do..." Most certainly a procedure would be necessary for an evaluation. Procedures, as well as policies, are currently being updated, even created, on more than one front in the municipal works of the town of Paris. Procedures are the nuts and bolts of the movement of those municipal works, and will be most helpful if they are efficient.
But why would that need an executive session? What's sensitive in this?
*The agenda for the selectboard meeting of Monday 8-09-10 included item #22:"Enter into executive session ...to discuss midterm year evaluation of the Town Manager" Evaluation forms were distributed to individual board members to note thoughts and observations of the town manager in preparation for a group evaluation, but no action was taken on the item at that time.
Once again, agenda of meeting Monday 8-23-10, item #16: "Discussion and action on the process of evaluation of the town manager." When one board member noted not being brought into the loop of why item 16 vs an executive session, Chairman Glover said he had made an executive decision on that. It was not clear if any others at the front table knew ahead of time about the decision.
Even so, instead of discussion and action on the process, a meeting for September 8th was set to discuss the process. No mention at that time of when an actual evaluation might take place.
So, the wording on this topic of evaluation, including a process for it, has gone from
"discuss midterm evaluation," to "discussion...on the process of evaluation," to "discuss the process on how to do an evaluation."
Why is this discussion so hard to get started? Why is there a discussion at all? Why an evaluation now, if there has not been precedent for midterm evaluations for town managers?
And, why is this process planning part sensitive enough to need an executive session?
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Title 1, §405, 6A(1) states that "An executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated." [emphasis added]
This is the law. But if, somehow, there is permission within the law to meet and figure out what to do as a group before the group officially evaluates, then why doesn't the agenda item for Wednesday's executive session read:
"Discussion in preparation for an evaluation of the town manager?"
At their special meeting Wednesday, 9-08-10, at 6:30 pm, Paris Selectboard will enter into executive session "to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager."
(see agenda)
Questions come to mind:
*"the process on how to do..." Most certainly a procedure would be necessary for an evaluation. Procedures, as well as policies, are currently being updated, even created, on more than one front in the municipal works of the town of Paris. Procedures are the nuts and bolts of the movement of those municipal works, and will be most helpful if they are efficient.
But why would that need an executive session? What's sensitive in this?
*The agenda for the selectboard meeting of Monday 8-09-10 included item #22:"Enter into executive session ...to discuss midterm year evaluation of the Town Manager" Evaluation forms were distributed to individual board members to note thoughts and observations of the town manager in preparation for a group evaluation, but no action was taken on the item at that time.
Once again, agenda of meeting Monday 8-23-10, item #16: "Discussion and action on the process of evaluation of the town manager." When one board member noted not being brought into the loop of why item 16 vs an executive session, Chairman Glover said he had made an executive decision on that. It was not clear if any others at the front table knew ahead of time about the decision.
Even so, instead of discussion and action on the process, a meeting for September 8th was set to discuss the process. No mention at that time of when an actual evaluation might take place.
So, the wording on this topic of evaluation, including a process for it, has gone from
"discuss midterm evaluation," to "discussion...on the process of evaluation," to "discuss the process on how to do an evaluation."
Why is this discussion so hard to get started? Why is there a discussion at all? Why an evaluation now, if there has not been precedent for midterm evaluations for town managers?
And, why is this process planning part sensitive enough to need an executive session?
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Title 1, §405, 6A(1) states that "An executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated." [emphasis added]
This is the law. But if, somehow, there is permission within the law to meet and figure out what to do as a group before the group officially evaluates, then why doesn't the agenda item for Wednesday's executive session read:
"Discussion in preparation for an evaluation of the town manager?"
Seems unnecessary to go to so much bother if there's nothing to hide....
Monday, September 6, 2010
This is where we are
Two weeks from the last Paris selectboard meeting, one week to go: the second and forth Mondays.
No written news does not necessarily mean things are nowhere.... It simply indicates that unless a public information situation arises there will not be fabricated information presented.
This is where we are:
*This Wednesday Sept. 8 the Paris Selectboard will meet in executive session to discuss "a process for evaluating the town manager.” This semi annual review has not been a pattern in recent years. Perhaps this one is in deference to the town of Paris' personnel policy that requires every newly hired employee serve a 6 month probationary period?
But can such an evaluation be a bad thing? Expectations can be presented on both sides of the equation.
Perhaps there will be a discussion of sick leave , and how and when it kicks in?
One assumes another executive session to actually evaluate the town manager will follow in the near future.
And one hopes that the general voting public would be notified if there was any problem, any discrepancy, any irregularity that they should be informed of. Because, otherwise, one tiny little citizens' watch group would have their hands full, wouldn't they?
*ATV's and any citizen concerns thereof are at a standstill for the moment.
*Next Monday 9-13-10 Paris Selectboard will have their regular meeting. The public is welcome.
*Tuesday 9-14-10 the Paris Planning Board will hold a public hearing at the town office for the Grace Baptist Church 5 day per week Christian day school. The school is on Paris Hill Road, part way up the hill beyond Mink Farm Road. This will be the second (or is it third) in the series. The Paris Planning board is working at best capacity with the ordinances at hand.
*There is a rate increase in the future for Paris Utility District. A hefty one. Last word was that the next meeting would be September 20.
*Norway Paris Solid Waste - a half-million dollar budget of tax payer dollars...a new board and new input. But an open question as to where it all will lead....
This is our town. We all have to keep watch.
No written news does not necessarily mean things are nowhere.... It simply indicates that unless a public information situation arises there will not be fabricated information presented.
This is where we are:
*This Wednesday Sept. 8 the Paris Selectboard will meet in executive session to discuss "a process for evaluating the town manager.” This semi annual review has not been a pattern in recent years. Perhaps this one is in deference to the town of Paris' personnel policy that requires every newly hired employee serve a 6 month probationary period?
But can such an evaluation be a bad thing? Expectations can be presented on both sides of the equation.
Perhaps there will be a discussion of sick leave , and how and when it kicks in?
One assumes another executive session to actually evaluate the town manager will follow in the near future.
And one hopes that the general voting public would be notified if there was any problem, any discrepancy, any irregularity that they should be informed of. Because, otherwise, one tiny little citizens' watch group would have their hands full, wouldn't they?
*ATV's and any citizen concerns thereof are at a standstill for the moment.
*Next Monday 9-13-10 Paris Selectboard will have their regular meeting. The public is welcome.
*Tuesday 9-14-10 the Paris Planning Board will hold a public hearing at the town office for the Grace Baptist Church 5 day per week Christian day school. The school is on Paris Hill Road, part way up the hill beyond Mink Farm Road. This will be the second (or is it third) in the series. The Paris Planning board is working at best capacity with the ordinances at hand.
*There is a rate increase in the future for Paris Utility District. A hefty one. Last word was that the next meeting would be September 20.
*Norway Paris Solid Waste - a half-million dollar budget of tax payer dollars...a new board and new input. But an open question as to where it all will lead....
This is our town. We all have to keep watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)