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.
