Monday 10-25-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at 7 PM in the town office. Public is welcome. Agenda here.
*The long awaited public discussion by the selectboard re. ATV use of certain public roads as connectors for some of their trails has been under small group discussion and negotiation. The expectation for this regularly scheduled meeting is to include an open discussion between board members, and to conclude with a final decision on the issue.
The original suggestion by some on the board was to wait and make a final decision at their regular December 13 meeting; but there were land owners who felt that the matter was more urgent, and needed to be dealt with before the ATV season was effectively over in December anyway.
*The Northern Border Grant, authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, addresses job creation, infrastructure improvements, and efforts to strengthen rural economy. It is designed to bring regional support to economically distressed areas; 12 of the 16 counties in Maine are eligible, including Oxford.
The topic is on the agenda to be presented by Linda Walbridge from Community Concepts. For more information, see press releases from Senator Olympia Snowe, and Maine Dept. of Economic Development.
*[editor's note on Town Manager's report, which, as is usually the case until the actual day of a meeting, has not yet been specified:
While the public does appreciate being reminded of upcoming events, deadlines, a new hiring, new rules and laws to consider, perhaps - the public does not wish, every meeting, a 20-30 minute session of accomplishments, new ideas and possibilities, or items that more than once have lead to board discussion and the need for action. If the manager has such items to present, they belong on the regular agenda.]
*Selectmen concerns. Paris citizens value their elected officials' ideas and perspectives. There must indeed be a venue for those concerns/thoughts/questions to be brought into the public view. It is realistic to have a catch-all sort of category in an agenda for last minute items - though it might more realistically be called "other."
Consider, however:
Items of importance, to the speaker, similar to Citizen Comments - though under the title of "Selectman Concerns" - have, more than once, been brought up under this umbrella, at the very end of the agenda, 2 1/2 or 3 hours in - and more - for a cable TV viewer, or after most of a live audience - often including the press - has gone home....
If an issue is important enough to be brought up at all, why is it not on the agenda proper? Or, at the very least, why is "selectmen concerns" not earlier in the agenda? When it would receive more attention? Surely this is not to sneak things in when no one notices? Nor could it be that our elected officials - also citizens - do not deserve prime time billing?
The devil is in the details.... How things are presented, how they are worded, how they are disclosed...all make a difference in how they are received/perceived by the public, and how they will be responded to. How things are presented affects the interaction between citizens, including elected officials, which, in itself, becomes part of the life force in any town.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
What about our funds?
Late in the evening of Paris selectboard's regular meeting, 10-12 -10, Selectman Kurtz brought up a concern: "I have a very serious concern - what is for me a very serious concern. There is a designated and undesignated fund balance policy for the town of Paris Maine, policy # 5-2007, that was approved by Sharon Jackson on November 15, 2007, and was approved by the municipal officers November 15 2007..." [editor's note: Selectman Kurtz then goes on to name the officers, and to summarize, quite accurately, the policy, posted here .]
Briefly, the policy was established to plan for redirecting accumulated, unused money, not otherwise earmarked, "to maintain an undesignated fund balance no less than 12% and no more than 15% of the previous year's operating expenditures less debt service." This money would be available for the town to use, if needed, in certain circumstances; or, it could be redirected into reserve accounts for specific purposes. The bar was set high (the 12% -15% figures); the goal, when the policy was put in place, was to achieve that "bar" (building up a big enough fund balance). Reaching that goal certainly did not happen the next day, but it was reached.
Selectman Kurtz went on to say "It is my understanding that by spending the $50,000 out of the reserves this summer for the firemen's per diem operating expenses, this town violated the standing fund balance policy."
As summarized in the Advertiser Democrat 10-14-10, the time of the night at the meeting was late; and, since no one on the board had previously seen any of the material about the fund balance question, or was even aware that this concern would be brought up at this meeting, chairman Glover recommended that the topic be visited again when there had been time to review the information and give it due consideration.
It seems a fair question to ask, "Are we, as a town, spending responsibly?"
It is a far more pointed question to ask "Is our financial management in responsible hands?"
The waters become murky, here. In a municipal engine, there are many places money can be legitimately stored, and management is in a position to recommend and/or direct those decisions.
(a) money can be left over from state or federal funds, and invested in an independent account to accrue interest until needed for appropriate use, like the FEMA funds received for storm destroyed roads in 2008;
(b) the George Morton Trust, for example, has very specific terms on how money can be used by the town of Paris;
(c) the town's checking account, where tax money coming in, and all manner of other things, are kept until needed to pay bills.
It is not uncomplicated.
Any individual can gather information on what is supposed to happen; but it is not so easy to figure out what should have happened and didn't, or who was responsible for the widget that should have gone into a certain space but went missing.... The process is not a straight line, but a series of lines. And they must lie in sync.
If the gauntlet was thrown down to prove that a violation was made of Paris policy #5-2007, and one individual hopes to be the sole conqueror in that quest, this would be counterproductive. This town is set up to be run by a team. It takes more than one to make a team....
If, however, there is going to be a team effort, and perhaps a team investigation [editor's note: read that all selectmen knowing - up front - what's going on, everyone being privy to all dialogue between concerned parties, and the public being fully informed] into how our financial machine operates, and who is responsible for what duties under what circumstances, then, and only then, would there be merit for looking into what's going on in regards to the designated and undesignated fund balance in the town of Paris.
Briefly, the policy was established to plan for redirecting accumulated, unused money, not otherwise earmarked, "to maintain an undesignated fund balance no less than 12% and no more than 15% of the previous year's operating expenditures less debt service." This money would be available for the town to use, if needed, in certain circumstances; or, it could be redirected into reserve accounts for specific purposes. The bar was set high (the 12% -15% figures); the goal, when the policy was put in place, was to achieve that "bar" (building up a big enough fund balance). Reaching that goal certainly did not happen the next day, but it was reached.
Selectman Kurtz went on to say "It is my understanding that by spending the $50,000 out of the reserves this summer for the firemen's per diem operating expenses, this town violated the standing fund balance policy."
As summarized in the Advertiser Democrat 10-14-10, the time of the night at the meeting was late; and, since no one on the board had previously seen any of the material about the fund balance question, or was even aware that this concern would be brought up at this meeting, chairman Glover recommended that the topic be visited again when there had been time to review the information and give it due consideration.
It seems a fair question to ask, "Are we, as a town, spending responsibly?"
It is a far more pointed question to ask "Is our financial management in responsible hands?"
The waters become murky, here. In a municipal engine, there are many places money can be legitimately stored, and management is in a position to recommend and/or direct those decisions.
(a) money can be left over from state or federal funds, and invested in an independent account to accrue interest until needed for appropriate use, like the FEMA funds received for storm destroyed roads in 2008;
(b) the George Morton Trust, for example, has very specific terms on how money can be used by the town of Paris;
(c) the town's checking account, where tax money coming in, and all manner of other things, are kept until needed to pay bills.
It is not uncomplicated.
Any individual can gather information on what is supposed to happen; but it is not so easy to figure out what should have happened and didn't, or who was responsible for the widget that should have gone into a certain space but went missing.... The process is not a straight line, but a series of lines. And they must lie in sync.
If the gauntlet was thrown down to prove that a violation was made of Paris policy #5-2007, and one individual hopes to be the sole conqueror in that quest, this would be counterproductive. This town is set up to be run by a team. It takes more than one to make a team....
If, however, there is going to be a team effort, and perhaps a team investigation [editor's note: read that all selectmen knowing - up front - what's going on, everyone being privy to all dialogue between concerned parties, and the public being fully informed] into how our financial machine operates, and who is responsible for what duties under what circumstances, then, and only then, would there be merit for looking into what's going on in regards to the designated and undesignated fund balance in the town of Paris.
Monday, October 18, 2010
To fill you in
*There is no regularly scheduled Paris Selectboard meeting this week.
The board will meet in executive session - not open to the public except for the formal opening of the session - on Wednesday the 20th to plan and discuss the upcoming...in a while...later on...down the road....6 month evaluation of the town manager that was urgent in August but has become less urgent, evidently - since November begins month 11 of his employment. [editor's note: see the excerpt of a transcription of the 10-11-10 meeting in previous posting.]
*Currently Norway-Paris Cable TV is renegotiating their contract with Time Warner Cable, not uncommon in the tidying up and straightening around of affairs in the cable TV world from time to time.
Serving on the NPCTV committee, along with Norway reps, 3 individuals represent Paris. One of these individuals will be going around to check how many cable connections Time Warner is currently providing. This individual is currently being ferried around by Paris Highway Department's transport.
This is best use of Paris funds? Yes? Perhaps the NPCTV committee individual could shovel a bit of gravel in between times....
*Last Tuesday's combined meeting with Paris planning board and selectboard included a discussion about the possibility of a study group to look at the feasibility of zoning (aka "land management") for the town of Paris - a concept Norway and Oxford already have in place. Both local newspapers have given coverage.
Two or 3 individuals of the combined boards had reservations about the potential success of such an exploratory study. The combined boards were, in the end, convinced to take a step back before actually agreeing to convene a study group to look into things. They chose to take a straw vote to decide whether to even consider convening a study group.
The final decision was to include information in a flyer from the comprehensive plan - that the voters have already voted on and agreed with - and a box for yes or no, and have a straw vote for a study group at the November 2 polls.
If not too many "no's", then a study group could be arranged. Then research would happen; information would be gathered to educate folks; and perhaps Paris voters could make a real decision on whatever the question actually becomes - instead of a straw vote.
There is, however, one small... inconvenience.... The straw vote flyers just came back from the printers, and none of the 174 folks who have voted by absentee ballot so far have had a chance to weigh in - if they would have chosen to on this optional straw vote in the first place.
Because it is not wise for a town to disenfranchise any voter, the decision has been made to mail out 174 flyers, and include a self addressed stamped envelope in case the individuals want to weigh in on the straw vote.
So: 174 x $.88 (2 stamps per) = $153.12; plus 174 envelopes and address labels. Plus the extra time from office staff on top of what they already do; one too many more pieces of busy work because of inadequate planning. No big deal? Why worry? When should we worry? And the omnipotent being who broadcasts that signal would be...?
* The Designated and Undesignated Fund Balance Policy, Town of Paris, Maine Policy Number 5-2007, will become an item of discussion by Paris Selectboard in the near future. TPR will give the topic some focus in an upcoming posting.
*Important Public Forum:
Wednesday October 20 , 7-9 PM at the OHCHS auditorium, The Advertiser Democrat will sponsor a formal public debate on question #1 on the Nov. 2 ballot: "Do you want to allow table games and slot machines at a single site in Oxford County, subject to local approval, with part of the profits going to specific state, local, and tribal programs?"
The debate looks to be professionally set up, competently staffed, and fairly run. Come and bring a friend. This is a high impact issue for our locality, never mind the whole state. The Advertiser deserves high marks for backing it.
The board will meet in executive session - not open to the public except for the formal opening of the session - on Wednesday the 20th to plan and discuss the upcoming...in a while...later on...down the road....6 month evaluation of the town manager that was urgent in August but has become less urgent, evidently - since November begins month 11 of his employment. [editor's note: see the excerpt of a transcription of the 10-11-10 meeting in previous posting.]
*Currently Norway-Paris Cable TV is renegotiating their contract with Time Warner Cable, not uncommon in the tidying up and straightening around of affairs in the cable TV world from time to time.
Serving on the NPCTV committee, along with Norway reps, 3 individuals represent Paris. One of these individuals will be going around to check how many cable connections Time Warner is currently providing. This individual is currently being ferried around by Paris Highway Department's transport.
This is best use of Paris funds? Yes? Perhaps the NPCTV committee individual could shovel a bit of gravel in between times....
*Last Tuesday's combined meeting with Paris planning board and selectboard included a discussion about the possibility of a study group to look at the feasibility of zoning (aka "land management") for the town of Paris - a concept Norway and Oxford already have in place. Both local newspapers have given coverage.
Two or 3 individuals of the combined boards had reservations about the potential success of such an exploratory study. The combined boards were, in the end, convinced to take a step back before actually agreeing to convene a study group to look into things. They chose to take a straw vote to decide whether to even consider convening a study group.
The final decision was to include information in a flyer from the comprehensive plan - that the voters have already voted on and agreed with - and a box for yes or no, and have a straw vote for a study group at the November 2 polls.
If not too many "no's", then a study group could be arranged. Then research would happen; information would be gathered to educate folks; and perhaps Paris voters could make a real decision on whatever the question actually becomes - instead of a straw vote.
There is, however, one small... inconvenience.... The straw vote flyers just came back from the printers, and none of the 174 folks who have voted by absentee ballot so far have had a chance to weigh in - if they would have chosen to on this optional straw vote in the first place.
Because it is not wise for a town to disenfranchise any voter, the decision has been made to mail out 174 flyers, and include a self addressed stamped envelope in case the individuals want to weigh in on the straw vote.
So: 174 x $.88 (2 stamps per) = $153.12; plus 174 envelopes and address labels. Plus the extra time from office staff on top of what they already do; one too many more pieces of busy work because of inadequate planning. No big deal? Why worry? When should we worry? And the omnipotent being who broadcasts that signal would be...?
* The Designated and Undesignated Fund Balance Policy, Town of Paris, Maine Policy Number 5-2007, will become an item of discussion by Paris Selectboard in the near future. TPR will give the topic some focus in an upcoming posting.
*Important Public Forum:
Wednesday October 20 , 7-9 PM at the OHCHS auditorium, The Advertiser Democrat will sponsor a formal public debate on question #1 on the Nov. 2 ballot: "Do you want to allow table games and slot machines at a single site in Oxford County, subject to local approval, with part of the profits going to specific state, local, and tribal programs?"
The debate looks to be professionally set up, competently staffed, and fairly run. Come and bring a friend. This is a high impact issue for our locality, never mind the whole state. The Advertiser deserves high marks for backing it.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Coming things
Tuesday October 12, 7PM town office - joint Paris Planning Board and Selectboard meeting. Open to the public. There has been a citizen request to look at the matter of zoning for the town of Paris. The smaller town of Oxford has had zoning in place for a period of time, as do a number of other Maine towns.
If the consideration of a theoretical resort casino is to be put before the voters, certainly a practical nuts and bolts matter like zoning can be discussed, researched, and eventually put before the voters, as well.
Wednesday October 13, 7pm. Location? Call town office to see if public is welcome. Invested parties meet, once again, to work to a common understanding on use of public roadways by ATVs, all information gathered to be fed into consideration during the discussion by Paris selectboard 10-25-10 .
Wednesday October 20, executive session for Paris Selectboard. Not open to the public except for the 2 minutes of formal opening protocol. The meeting will be used to plan - again, more, for the eventual 6 month evaluation meeting (now in month 9) for the town manager. See transcript excerpt of 9-27 discussion below.
Monday October 25, 7pm, location uncertain - regular Paris Selectboard meeting. Public welcome. Includes discussion of ATV use of public roadways, hopefully using input from recent meetings with invested parties.
Wednesday November 17, location unknown, and most certainly not open to the public; the delivering of the actual evaluation to the town manager... month 10 and then some.
This 6 month evaluation that, back in August, seemed of serious import and necessary, despite such action for Paris town managers having little precedent.... and at least one selectman being in a very critical posture....
The following section of transcript is from the 9-27-10 selectboard meeting. [editor's note: the topic in the following transcript came under "selectmen concerns" about 9 pm in the meeting, item #17. Evidently the import of comments made at this point in the meeting are inversely proportional to the import of their value to the town's operating concerns.... Otherwise, comments of such import would... surely...be put on the agenda outright, along with ground water analysis and liquor licenses and warrant items.]
Selectman Kurtz: "Are we going to put this off until January? Make it a January review?"
Manager Tarr: "We're nearing a point there this makes sense, but I wouldn't stop at this point, because we're all learning some things about the process...either call this the annual...it may take 2 meetings before, you know, I do my own self assessment, and then my goals and objectives [editor's note: assigned several weeks ago...]as I see them; and then another meeting for you people to say this is what you agree with and what you don't agree with, or if...what you would like."
I think that type of process meritorious. It takes time, however...and...you know.... Anniversary date is January 4. So, if you did this, and made a decision in November, or early December, call it the 'Annual'."
Selectman Herrick: "Sure."
Sel. Kurtz: "With this crowd (chuckle, chuckle)...it does take time."
Manager T: "Well it certainly is different...but you people have gone through a huge transition this year, and you're working well as a group.... Yeah, it does take time."
WAIT A MINUTE: who is running this town? This new...town manager is the one to tell the selectboard they are doing a good job? To tell them he will "do... [his] goals and objectives" - for our future? As opposed to him fitting his goals and objectives into ways of meeting the needs of the town as set forth by the selectmen?
Of course a town manager hired into such a situation would want a mid-term evaluation - or any sort of evaluation - to be held later rather than sooner. Or not at all, if possible. Or, at the very least, on his terms.
Who should be leading whom?
If the consideration of a theoretical resort casino is to be put before the voters, certainly a practical nuts and bolts matter like zoning can be discussed, researched, and eventually put before the voters, as well.
Wednesday October 13, 7pm. Location? Call town office to see if public is welcome. Invested parties meet, once again, to work to a common understanding on use of public roadways by ATVs, all information gathered to be fed into consideration during the discussion by Paris selectboard 10-25-10 .
Wednesday October 20, executive session for Paris Selectboard. Not open to the public except for the 2 minutes of formal opening protocol. The meeting will be used to plan - again, more, for the eventual 6 month evaluation meeting (now in month 9) for the town manager. See transcript excerpt of 9-27 discussion below.
Monday October 25, 7pm, location uncertain - regular Paris Selectboard meeting. Public welcome. Includes discussion of ATV use of public roadways, hopefully using input from recent meetings with invested parties.
Wednesday November 17, location unknown, and most certainly not open to the public; the delivering of the actual evaluation to the town manager... month 10 and then some.
This 6 month evaluation that, back in August, seemed of serious import and necessary, despite such action for Paris town managers having little precedent.... and at least one selectman being in a very critical posture....
The following section of transcript is from the 9-27-10 selectboard meeting. [editor's note: the topic in the following transcript came under "selectmen concerns" about 9 pm in the meeting, item #17. Evidently the import of comments made at this point in the meeting are inversely proportional to the import of their value to the town's operating concerns.... Otherwise, comments of such import would... surely...be put on the agenda outright, along with ground water analysis and liquor licenses and warrant items.]
Selectman Kurtz: "Are we going to put this off until January? Make it a January review?"
Manager Tarr: "We're nearing a point there this makes sense, but I wouldn't stop at this point, because we're all learning some things about the process...either call this the annual...it may take 2 meetings before, you know, I do my own self assessment, and then my goals and objectives [editor's note: assigned several weeks ago...]as I see them; and then another meeting for you people to say this is what you agree with and what you don't agree with, or if...what you would like."
I think that type of process meritorious. It takes time, however...and...you know.... Anniversary date is January 4. So, if you did this, and made a decision in November, or early December, call it the 'Annual'."
Selectman Herrick: "Sure."
Sel. Kurtz: "With this crowd (chuckle, chuckle)...it does take time."
Manager T: "Well it certainly is different...but you people have gone through a huge transition this year, and you're working well as a group.... Yeah, it does take time."
WAIT A MINUTE: who is running this town? This new...town manager is the one to tell the selectboard they are doing a good job? To tell them he will "do... [his] goals and objectives" - for our future? As opposed to him fitting his goals and objectives into ways of meeting the needs of the town as set forth by the selectmen?
Of course a town manager hired into such a situation would want a mid-term evaluation - or any sort of evaluation - to be held later rather than sooner. Or not at all, if possible. Or, at the very least, on his terms.
Who should be leading whom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)