Spending...who's in charge of it in our town.... a place where the buck stops.... Now, to find just that right spot...
Back in April 2010: a fairly new town manager - new to Paris, anyway; and a need for a replacement police cruiser. A 2003 Chevy Impala appears on the horizon through the Surplus Property Program from the State of Maine. According to the purchase order from the town of Paris,4-01-10, as well as the invoice from the State of Maine's Bureau of General Services, 4-06-10, Paris then owed the State of Maine $3,950.
According to the Purchasing Policy in effect for Paris at that time, "The Municipal Officers prior to execution shall approve any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200." [and] "Any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200 must be competitively bid."
The $3950 appeared on warrant #86, which was on the agenda to be approved at the Paris selectboard meeting 5-10-10.
However, consider the following timeline:
4-1-10 purchase order from Town of Paris, signed by Police Chief Verrier;
4-1-10 receipt signed by Chief Verrier for a car purchased from Maine's Surplus Property Program; [note a stamped entry top right corner]
4-6-10 invoice from Bureau of General Services;
4-28-10 check cut by Paris to Treasurer, State of Maine for $3,950;
5-10-10 payment for purchased item authorized.
What's out of sequence here?
And, notice any competive bids?
No one stole a car at gun point, and no doubt the Paris police department needed the car. But. WHO is supposed to be calling the shots here? Perhaps this was a misunderstanding? New manager in town and all...? Perhaps the town manager told the police chief to handle it the way he did...perhaps vice versa... who knows? But the selectboard learned about it after the fact. What...what was everybody doing when they were supposed to be watching out for things? Was anyone at all minding the store?
And here we are 7 months later, the same players, all conducting business in the same old way. Whose interest is being served?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Well placed questions
How do we take stock, here in the town of Paris? What do we look at, what kinds of things do we measure, to see if things are better now in Paris?
Is better only the absence of crisis? The opposite of chaos in the streets? No yelling and screaming at public meetings? Are there specific areas where we can - and should - focus and gather information more objectively?
Let's focus on how our taxpayer money is spent, the actual, physical doing of it. We are clear on whose money it is...; but the actual process of how it gets spent - and who is responsible for the outcome. This would, of course, include the wider view of the massive planning that makes up the budget process for the town, and culminates in a final product brought to the voters at town meeting in June.
But the playing out of that budget happens in the actual day-to-day activities of the town's operation. The town's treasurer signs checks and keeps a meticulous accounting - all on public record - of the process after it reaches her.
But what kinds of checks and balances are in place to insure that the process - before it reaches her - is structured to safeguard our hard earned dollars ?
A topic of high interest during the last 2 selectboard meetings has been trying to understand the process used to spend certain grant money awarded to our Paris police department. Not only the process, but who in that process is accountable? Even if the issue is not legally questionable, it is troublesome not to know specifically how our money is being handled.
In August 2010, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant offered several towns in this area the opportunity to apply, as a group, for a grant from the Maine Department of Public Safety, for money to mount a project in their various communities. Utilizing the resources in his department, Paris Police Chief David Verrier submitted a grant for Paris. His proposal outlined a plan to offer police support of surveillance and assistance for the new walking trail being built by several community organizations, as well as a driver educational tool for Oxford Hills High School students.
The particular item to be purchased with grant money was a golf cart. The need is real, the proposal, as presented on 11-08 seemed to make sense; and this appears, on the face of it, to be a worthwhile project. Partial transcript of Paris selectboard meeting 11-08-10 linked here.
However, it was evidently just not that simple. By the 11-22 selectboard meeting, a wrinkle had appeared: the actual item on the warrant showed that the golf cart was more expensive than the selectboard had thought.
The grant amount awarded was $1608, and that was the amount discussed on 11-08. But the total warrant amount as listed 11-22 was $1899. Partial transcript Paris selectboard meeting 11-22-10 linked here. Did someone not ask the right question? Did someone not tell the whole story? Did someone not....
The purchase order was signed only by the police chief. And the town manager (chief financial officer, one understands...) says he didn't know a purchase order had happened. But that he and the chief did talk, on more than one occasion. On this topic. "I knew he was doing this." [Mgr. Tarr, 11-22-08.] One cannot know what they did talk about....
The bill of sale itself was initialed by the town manager.
A harangue from three select board members ensued - rightly so - and directed mostly at Chief Verrier, for leaving them out of the loop, or perhaps misleading them.
Selectman Kurtz, however, had a few will placed questions for Mgr. Tarr, on the line of who's in charge here.... and TPR has to agree the town manager did not select best management practice in this operation . Mgr. Tarr seemed full of ways to avoid responsibility for a wrongful process... and for not really knowing what was going on.
In fact he put a good bit of emphasis on the fact that there were no directions available- in a proper purchasing policy, for example - to make clear what his responsibility was. [editor's note: There is indeed a purchasing policy in place, approved in 2006; but even if the town manager did not consult it, or felt it was not explicit it enough, there will never be any policy written that substitutes for common sense.] One supposes, by his comments, then, that probably it was the police chief who didn't do the right thing...? Maybe. Could be. Who knows?
Perhaps this was just a miscommunication all around...perhaps it was just this one time....
Is better only the absence of crisis? The opposite of chaos in the streets? No yelling and screaming at public meetings? Are there specific areas where we can - and should - focus and gather information more objectively?
Let's focus on how our taxpayer money is spent, the actual, physical doing of it. We are clear on whose money it is...; but the actual process of how it gets spent - and who is responsible for the outcome. This would, of course, include the wider view of the massive planning that makes up the budget process for the town, and culminates in a final product brought to the voters at town meeting in June.
But the playing out of that budget happens in the actual day-to-day activities of the town's operation. The town's treasurer signs checks and keeps a meticulous accounting - all on public record - of the process after it reaches her.
But what kinds of checks and balances are in place to insure that the process - before it reaches her - is structured to safeguard our hard earned dollars ?
A topic of high interest during the last 2 selectboard meetings has been trying to understand the process used to spend certain grant money awarded to our Paris police department. Not only the process, but who in that process is accountable? Even if the issue is not legally questionable, it is troublesome not to know specifically how our money is being handled.
In August 2010, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant offered several towns in this area the opportunity to apply, as a group, for a grant from the Maine Department of Public Safety, for money to mount a project in their various communities. Utilizing the resources in his department, Paris Police Chief David Verrier submitted a grant for Paris. His proposal outlined a plan to offer police support of surveillance and assistance for the new walking trail being built by several community organizations, as well as a driver educational tool for Oxford Hills High School students.
The particular item to be purchased with grant money was a golf cart. The need is real, the proposal, as presented on 11-08 seemed to make sense; and this appears, on the face of it, to be a worthwhile project. Partial transcript of Paris selectboard meeting 11-08-10 linked here.
However, it was evidently just not that simple. By the 11-22 selectboard meeting, a wrinkle had appeared: the actual item on the warrant showed that the golf cart was more expensive than the selectboard had thought.
The grant amount awarded was $1608, and that was the amount discussed on 11-08. But the total warrant amount as listed 11-22 was $1899. Partial transcript Paris selectboard meeting 11-22-10 linked here. Did someone not ask the right question? Did someone not tell the whole story? Did someone not....
The purchase order was signed only by the police chief. And the town manager (chief financial officer, one understands...) says he didn't know a purchase order had happened. But that he and the chief did talk, on more than one occasion. On this topic. "I knew he was doing this." [Mgr. Tarr, 11-22-08.] One cannot know what they did talk about....
The bill of sale itself was initialed by the town manager.
A harangue from three select board members ensued - rightly so - and directed mostly at Chief Verrier, for leaving them out of the loop, or perhaps misleading them.
Selectman Kurtz, however, had a few will placed questions for Mgr. Tarr, on the line of who's in charge here.... and TPR has to agree the town manager did not select best management practice in this operation . Mgr. Tarr seemed full of ways to avoid responsibility for a wrongful process... and for not really knowing what was going on.
In fact he put a good bit of emphasis on the fact that there were no directions available- in a proper purchasing policy, for example - to make clear what his responsibility was. [editor's note: There is indeed a purchasing policy in place, approved in 2006; but even if the town manager did not consult it, or felt it was not explicit it enough, there will never be any policy written that substitutes for common sense.] One supposes, by his comments, then, that probably it was the police chief who didn't do the right thing...? Maybe. Could be. Who knows?
Perhaps this was just a miscommunication all around...perhaps it was just this one time....
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Taking stock
Looking at our municipal machine and its administrative function, here in the town of Paris, just where are we at the end of this November 2010?
A brief tally:
*One year and five-plus months since a newly elected selectboard came on the scene (6-22-09) with an agenda to fashion the town in a new order;
*One year and five months since an interim town manager was hired to assist them (7-01-09);
A brief tally:
*One year and five-plus months since a newly elected selectboard came on the scene (6-22-09) with an agenda to fashion the town in a new order;
*One year and five months since an interim town manager was hired to assist them (7-01-09);
*One year since more than 1500 Paris voters, in a general election (11-03-09), approved an ordinance for a recall election in the town of Paris;
*Eleven months since a full time town manager was hired (01-04-10). [editor's note: 2 members of the board that hired him still serve on the selectboard today, 11-28-10] ;
*Eleven months since 487 determined Paris voters gathered together, on a bitter cold night, for a special town meeting (01-08-10), and made it crystal clear that they called the shots, not a small group of individuals with a personal agenda;
*Ten months since two special recall elections (2-02-10 and 2-05-10) that saw two of the five selectmen on that board voted out of office by sizeable margins because they had lost the confidence of the voters;
*Nine months since a special election (3-16-10) replaced the two recalled selectmen;
*Five months since the regular election at the annual Paris town meeting (6-08-10) produced an additional individual to fill out the official 5 member selectboard.
A question - perhaps a statement, really - frequently heard here and there, and round about, both in the town of Paris, and beyond:
"Haven't heard anything; haven't seen anything in the papers. Guess things are better in Paris now. Right?"
Are things better?
"Haven't heard anything; haven't seen anything in the papers. Guess things are better in Paris now. Right?"
Are things better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)