Clarification: Monday 12-12-10, TPR announced "We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau." TPR needs to be clear that Ms. Gendreau is not the treasurer; she is the deputy treasurer. Her legal title is Finance Clerk, Deputy Treasurer. [Annual Town Report 2008-2009, Paris Maine].
The legal title of Treasurer, Town of Paris, goes to Town Manager Tarr.
Nevertheless, Ms. Gendreau has resigned, and that is an item that Paris citizens overlook at their peril. She is - and was - a dedicated, responsible, competent professional, and she kept us stable (as stated last posting); and now we have lost her. Why would that be? And will we be losing others? Has anyone looked? The staff behind the hired manager is only a work force, only minions...only what keeps this town running.
There are those who ask questions, who look deeper; and there are those who don't - and will not.
Are things better in Paris now than a year ago? Who would be in a position to know? Have you been in the town office to look? Have you asked questions? Would you know if you heard the truth? or not?
There will be an interim finance officer coming in - TPR reported that Mgr. Tarr would act as interim; that is not strictly accurate, as the transcript below shows. [editor's note: There is a bad taste in Paris for the word "interim", i.e., the interim town manager after the vendetta firing of Town Manager Jackson.]
And then there is to be advertising for the permanent finance officer position. The interim officer who will somehow keep this town running... by handling just about everything... will fade into the sunset, and a new, handpicked individual will arrive on the scene.
Wait...handpicked by who...er whom??
Now why should TPR be so concerned about all of this? After all, the Paris Selectboard is on top of all of this. Hmmmm.... Refer to the statements above about asking questions.
Transcript, from beginning of Citizen Comments, Paris Selectboard meeting 12-13-10:
Chairman Glover: "Moving on to Citizen's Comments - Yes?
Citizen: "This is for Mgr. Tarr. I'm concerned about the money being managed in our town. What steps are you taking to replace Sharon Gendreau's position?"
Mgr. Tarr: "...Probably...Sharon will be replaced on an interim basis..."
Citizen: "By...?"
Mgr. Tarr: "I'm not sure. And...I just learned about this yesterday, so...I'm sorry - Friday.[editor's note: TPR wonders about this date....] So,...and then because of the highly sensitive nature of dealing with public finance, it's...not only will we be replacing, replacing her on a temporary basis, it takes quite a bit of time and work to find the right person on a permanent basis. So, it would be a two-step process - someone will be here before Sharon leaves, and...she will be available on an on-call basis for advice and so forth."
Citizen: "Who has oversight over this interim process?"
Mgr. Tarr: "I do."
Citizen: "And then, that's...then you will be answerable to the board on that, right? "
Mgr. Tarr: "Yes."
Citizen: (to the board) "And will there be oversight from the board, then? Yes?...I'm simply asking..."
Chair. G.: "What?"
Citizen: "Oversight, from the board, on this?"
More than one board member: "Yes."
There followed a bit of chatting among some board members about an individual who might be interested in an interim position...in this situation...losing the finance officer...and all...
Is anyone paying attention?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Concerns and Interests
Small group tonight on this December 13th. 5 sturdy selectboard members; 1 town manager; 1 faithful cameraman; 1 diligent reporter, 5 concerned citizens.
Questions got asked; warrants paid; new procedures were needed and tried; there was advocating and critiquing and explaining and .... All the things that should be in the public viewing of our municipal machine's functioning.
But, just as in the functioning of a car engine there are wrenches and oil filters and nuts and bolts, etc., critical to the functioning of that engine but not necessarily in the spotlight as separate items, so, too, there are things in the process of the municipal machine that are not right out in front - pieces that make the things in front go, but aren't all lined up for inspection right that minute. Pieces that can be over-looked if one doesn't look closer.
There are outward signs that can indicate areas that may be of real concern behind the scenes.
Whose interest is being served? A relevant question, for starters....
Consider the following:
The structure of our town, any municipality, is defined by its bylaws, excerpts of Paris' here. Generally speaking, the rules are set up to establish rules of conduct and procedures to make the town work. Legislative body elects Board who hires Manager who appoints Department Heads w/ board approval.
Meetings, even how the agendas are to be prepared are set out. Bylaws...Paris, Section 4 - Meetings: ...."Any Selectman or other citizen may request an item for inclusion in the agenda for a regular meeting by notifying the Town Manager by noon on the Thursday before the scheduled meeting. An agenda for each meeting shall be prepared by the Town Manager."
Tonight Selectman Kurtz faced Manager Tarr with refusing to put his requested item on the agenda; Manager Tarr responded that he didn't refuse, he wanted the item worded differently; Selectman Kurtz maintained it was his right to have the item worded as he asked; the item, however, did not appear on the agenda. [editor's note: the item, it appears, was to have an executive session to discuss the manager's duties, evidently in the context of how information is to be presented to the board.]
The discussion continued, and the items ended up being discussed anyway -in public; it did not to appear to be any information that had not been discussed before in public. In fact Mgr. Tarr said "we" had dealt with the information before....
It was not clear what his refusal to place the item on the agenda was actually intended to accomplish - he said he felt his rights were being violated. He said he told "Chairman Ray" that he was not going to put it on the agenda.
Was this a discussion on even ground? Or, was someone not doing what he was supposed to do?Was someone using Chairman Ray as the fall guy for not following procedure? (Chairman Ray did not take any part in the discussion.)
Selectboard member Smart pointed out that 3 board members on the previous board, no longer on the board, made a very bad habit of changing rules to suit their own purpose; and that Mgr. Tarr's choice to just decide to leave the item off the agenda caused her serious concern.
TPR, too.
The next critically serious concern:
We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau. Manager Tarr said that she resigned for personal reasons.
This is unfortunate for Paris for so many reasons - not the least of them her level of understanding of what goes on in the financial operation of our town. The multiple aspects of the position are staggering.
A citizen asked Mgr. Tarr what steps were being taken to fill her position? Mgr. Tarr said they would advertise. To the question of who would handle the interim position before permanent hiring? "Me," he answered.
Are there selectboard members prepared to give the right kind of oversight for this kind of situation?
In past postings TPR has referred to Manager Tarr's wearing of more than one hat [Dec.5 Continuing to track]; in this two hat business, extra work has to get sloughed off somewhere....who picks up the slack?
Who is asking questions about how things are managed in our town office? Our whole community is routed through there; who is making sure things are going on in the best way possible? Is anyone paying attention?
Ms. Gendreau is a dedicated, responsible, competent professional. She goes the extra mile and does that one extra thing. She has played a major role in keeping us stable in this transition between awful and maybe. Now here we are...just one more thing... in an already heavily loaded work place.
Caution....
Questions got asked; warrants paid; new procedures were needed and tried; there was advocating and critiquing and explaining and .... All the things that should be in the public viewing of our municipal machine's functioning.
But, just as in the functioning of a car engine there are wrenches and oil filters and nuts and bolts, etc., critical to the functioning of that engine but not necessarily in the spotlight as separate items, so, too, there are things in the process of the municipal machine that are not right out in front - pieces that make the things in front go, but aren't all lined up for inspection right that minute. Pieces that can be over-looked if one doesn't look closer.
There are outward signs that can indicate areas that may be of real concern behind the scenes.
Whose interest is being served? A relevant question, for starters....
Consider the following:
The structure of our town, any municipality, is defined by its bylaws, excerpts of Paris' here. Generally speaking, the rules are set up to establish rules of conduct and procedures to make the town work. Legislative body elects Board who hires Manager who appoints Department Heads w/ board approval.
Meetings, even how the agendas are to be prepared are set out. Bylaws...Paris, Section 4 - Meetings: ...."Any Selectman or other citizen may request an item for inclusion in the agenda for a regular meeting by notifying the Town Manager by noon on the Thursday before the scheduled meeting. An agenda for each meeting shall be prepared by the Town Manager."
Tonight Selectman Kurtz faced Manager Tarr with refusing to put his requested item on the agenda; Manager Tarr responded that he didn't refuse, he wanted the item worded differently; Selectman Kurtz maintained it was his right to have the item worded as he asked; the item, however, did not appear on the agenda. [editor's note: the item, it appears, was to have an executive session to discuss the manager's duties, evidently in the context of how information is to be presented to the board.]
The discussion continued, and the items ended up being discussed anyway -in public; it did not to appear to be any information that had not been discussed before in public. In fact Mgr. Tarr said "we" had dealt with the information before....
It was not clear what his refusal to place the item on the agenda was actually intended to accomplish - he said he felt his rights were being violated. He said he told "Chairman Ray" that he was not going to put it on the agenda.
Was this a discussion on even ground? Or, was someone not doing what he was supposed to do?Was someone using Chairman Ray as the fall guy for not following procedure? (Chairman Ray did not take any part in the discussion.)
Selectboard member Smart pointed out that 3 board members on the previous board, no longer on the board, made a very bad habit of changing rules to suit their own purpose; and that Mgr. Tarr's choice to just decide to leave the item off the agenda caused her serious concern.
TPR, too.
The next critically serious concern:
We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau. Manager Tarr said that she resigned for personal reasons.
This is unfortunate for Paris for so many reasons - not the least of them her level of understanding of what goes on in the financial operation of our town. The multiple aspects of the position are staggering.
A citizen asked Mgr. Tarr what steps were being taken to fill her position? Mgr. Tarr said they would advertise. To the question of who would handle the interim position before permanent hiring? "Me," he answered.
Are there selectboard members prepared to give the right kind of oversight for this kind of situation?
In past postings TPR has referred to Manager Tarr's wearing of more than one hat [Dec.5 Continuing to track]; in this two hat business, extra work has to get sloughed off somewhere....who picks up the slack?
Who is asking questions about how things are managed in our town office? Our whole community is routed through there; who is making sure things are going on in the best way possible? Is anyone paying attention?
Ms. Gendreau is a dedicated, responsible, competent professional. She goes the extra mile and does that one extra thing. She has played a major role in keeping us stable in this transition between awful and maybe. Now here we are...just one more thing... in an already heavily loaded work place.
Caution....
Sunday, December 12, 2010
On Monday...
...Paris selectboard will meet at 7pm 12-13-10, at the town office. Agenda posted here. Readers will note that the now infamous golf cart discussion will be included, again, #11. Doesn't seem to be listed under unfinished business (original topic came up at the two previous meetings)... perhaps there is to be a new approach to this brought-up-before... tabled... unfinished-because-it-needed-more-information old business? Thus it becomes new business...?
And item #6b. employee resignation. Mmm...yes...
However, in the interest of continuing to take stock, to see what is working in Paris at this moment and what is not...back to #11. Not to beat a dead horse...but there is a point of interest to focusing a bit more on what might be behind the board's concern in this issue. TPR does not believe that the selectboard is refusing to support preventive measures that will make our population safer. The target(s) of concern in the agenda item appear to have become the individuals themselves, the ones bringing up the item; and the process, in fact perhaps even the thinking behind the process, that the individuals have now used more than once in their approach to the selectboard. [editor's note: see Backtracking, TPR 11-29-10]
The Advertiser Democrat, 12-09-10, p.4A, published well-put-together coverage of the 12-06-10 selectboard meeting's discussion of the issue. See Matt Hongoltz-Hetling's "Open Ledgers Insure Transparency in Paris."
Note the last 2 sections, excerpts printed here from Manager Tarr's comments:
"The current board wants more involvement in financial matters...It appears that they will reserve for themselves the right to approve all expenditures..."
"This is fine, as long as it is clearly articulated, which the emerging purchasing policy will do...However, it is still a couple of months away from a final version."
TPR poses the following questions concerning management skills, and who should be checking on these skills, if we are paying with taxpayer money for someone to use such:
*Last sentence in Manager Tarr's comments "...still a couple of months away..." : So, for the next couple of months management cannot use common sense, cannot possibly know what to do - or... could it be...can still use that excuse to do whatever he feels like until told otherwise on paper...?
*"More involvement in financial matters..." Well how dare they? How dare the selectboard look over the shoulder of an employee in whom it is beginning to look as if they do not have total confidence? How dare they consider that taxpayers might be getting concerned?
*And consider this:
Is the manager just now getting the message that the selectboard wants to be in the loop? Where has he been? How hard is that? Do we need to list for him all the items the board has brought to his attention - that the rest of us already remember? Current Purchasing Policy or not.
*Consider the difficulty if Paris has a manager who cannot think outside the printed page... or uses that for an excuse.
And item #6b. employee resignation. Mmm...yes...
However, in the interest of continuing to take stock, to see what is working in Paris at this moment and what is not...back to #11. Not to beat a dead horse...but there is a point of interest to focusing a bit more on what might be behind the board's concern in this issue. TPR does not believe that the selectboard is refusing to support preventive measures that will make our population safer. The target(s) of concern in the agenda item appear to have become the individuals themselves, the ones bringing up the item; and the process, in fact perhaps even the thinking behind the process, that the individuals have now used more than once in their approach to the selectboard. [editor's note: see Backtracking, TPR 11-29-10]
The Advertiser Democrat, 12-09-10, p.4A, published well-put-together coverage of the 12-06-10 selectboard meeting's discussion of the issue. See Matt Hongoltz-Hetling's "Open Ledgers Insure Transparency in Paris."
Note the last 2 sections, excerpts printed here from Manager Tarr's comments:
"The current board wants more involvement in financial matters...It appears that they will reserve for themselves the right to approve all expenditures..."
"This is fine, as long as it is clearly articulated, which the emerging purchasing policy will do...However, it is still a couple of months away from a final version."
TPR poses the following questions concerning management skills, and who should be checking on these skills, if we are paying with taxpayer money for someone to use such:
*Last sentence in Manager Tarr's comments "...still a couple of months away..." : So, for the next couple of months management cannot use common sense, cannot possibly know what to do - or... could it be...can still use that excuse to do whatever he feels like until told otherwise on paper...?
*"More involvement in financial matters..." Well how dare they? How dare the selectboard look over the shoulder of an employee in whom it is beginning to look as if they do not have total confidence? How dare they consider that taxpayers might be getting concerned?
*And consider this:
Is the manager just now getting the message that the selectboard wants to be in the loop? Where has he been? How hard is that? Do we need to list for him all the items the board has brought to his attention - that the rest of us already remember? Current Purchasing Policy or not.
*Consider the difficulty if Paris has a manager who cannot think outside the printed page... or uses that for an excuse.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Continuing to track
A great deal of 2009 - 2010 saw the municipality of Paris with figurative pant legs rolled up, muck boots slogging through a lot of serious structural dilemmas all at once, including, in spring 2010, the culmination of events surrounding the solid waste disposal system, NPSW (Norway Paris Solid Waste).
No need to drag out well worn frustrations and arguments, or to repeat well documented information; but, for the sake of taking stock, it is helpful to have a timeline to keep things in perspective. The sources of the documentation are listed, but not posted in TPR at this time, simply noted for point of accuracy.
Timeline:
*2-18-10 (The Advertiser Democrat) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met with Atty. Robert Crawford of Bernstein Shur, and confronted the issue of appointed board members not doing what they were supposed to do. The topic was what Atty. Crawford put as needing to "Right the ship;"
*2-25-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met, once again, and dismissed the sitting NPSW board, and appointed their respective town managers, David Holt (Norway) and Phillip Tarr (Paris) to run the operation on an emergency basis - until things were sorted out and a newly appointed board could be put in place. Mgr. Tarr acted as president, Mgr. Holt as treasurer.
*4-14-10 (documents presented by Kathy Tyson of Runyon, Kersteen, & Oullette, auditors) A limited internal control review was presented to shed light on how things should work - as well as some recommendations. Both managers, plus several selectboard members from both towns were in attendance;
*6 -29-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Paris selectboard appointed 2 new members to the NPSW board: Barbara Payne, and David Stanley. The selectboard reappointed Mgr. Tarr to the board as well. Norway made their new appointments July 1, and also reappointed Mgr. Holt.
*7-7-10 (agenda of NPSW meeting, and audience witness) Officers were elected from the appointed board members. One of the newly appointed board members pointed out that it was inappropriate for either of the 2 town managers to serve as officers on this new NPSW board since the managers represented towns that are served by the organization. In fact the new member questioned the 2 managers even being voting members. Six (out of the newly appointed 7) board members were present, and the new board member's concern was out-voted.
Mgr. Tarr spoke strongly about wanting to continue on that board as president, even though not a resident of Paris as the other appointed Paris board members are. In spite of the new member's concern, Tarr was elected by the board members to serve as president of the NPSW board; Mgr. Holt was not re elected as treasurer, however, and D. Stanley was elected to serve in that capacity.
Returning to the question asked by the new board member, above: is it appropriate for a town manager - or two of them, in this case - to serve as a voting member, or, even more to the point, as a president - on the board of an organization that serves and is funded by the town being run by said manager?
The emergency basis for that original arrangement was a 4 month interval with specific needs, and both towns are fortunate that their respective managers were willing - and able - to take over and bring things along to a reasonable juncture. If there were extra duties for any staff members in the respective town offices of these managers each wearing 2 hats, working on a temporary basis to clean up a difficult situation was just that: temporary. People will pitch in, things can get done if everybody helps. But not indefinitely....
[editor's note: As a disclaimer relevant to the following information, and other like information in our posts, it is not TPR's intent to debate or interpret law; only to point out, from time to time, the existence of various points of law.]
In the Municipal Officer's Manual,published by Maine Municipal Association, there is reference to the behavior of municipal officials and how these officials are to serve the interests of the public. [editor's note: MMA's opinions on standard practice are commonly accepted in most municipalities. ]
In Chapter 2, "Board of Municipal Officers," under the topic "Conflict of Interest," the manual states: Maine law encompasses four "conflict of interest" situations that can occur in municipal government: *financial conflict of interest; *incompatibility of office; *prohibited reappointments or employment; *bias.
Is there a case for "incompatibility of office" for Mgr. Tarr? MMA Manual's discussion on the topic is linked here.
Also consider this: Two administrative jobs, both time consuming, both serving the public, both requiring the additional support of others besides the administrator.
But. The taxpayers in Paris have hired a town manager, with a competitive salary, as well as generous benefits. The NPSW administrative office is not paid, as far as TPR understands. Are we taxpayers, therefore, subsidizing this second administrative position through the work of other town employees? And, is the paying job - the running of the town of Paris - getting short shrift? Are things getting done properly? And how would we know? Who would jeopardize their job to say so publicly?
Whose interest is being served?
There is a new regional grant program currently being explored using NPSW officials, spearheaded by its president; new options for handling of solid waste in general are on the horizon. The workload for the NPSW administrator is going to require more and more attention.
This is a situation that needs to be looked at by our elected officials in Paris.The responsibility for this falls squarely in their lap.
No need to drag out well worn frustrations and arguments, or to repeat well documented information; but, for the sake of taking stock, it is helpful to have a timeline to keep things in perspective. The sources of the documentation are listed, but not posted in TPR at this time, simply noted for point of accuracy.
Timeline:
*2-18-10 (The Advertiser Democrat) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met with Atty. Robert Crawford of Bernstein Shur, and confronted the issue of appointed board members not doing what they were supposed to do. The topic was what Atty. Crawford put as needing to "Right the ship;"
*2-25-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Norway & Paris combined selectboards met, once again, and dismissed the sitting NPSW board, and appointed their respective town managers, David Holt (Norway) and Phillip Tarr (Paris) to run the operation on an emergency basis - until things were sorted out and a newly appointed board could be put in place. Mgr. Tarr acted as president, Mgr. Holt as treasurer.
*4-14-10 (documents presented by Kathy Tyson of Runyon, Kersteen, & Oullette, auditors) A limited internal control review was presented to shed light on how things should work - as well as some recommendations. Both managers, plus several selectboard members from both towns were in attendance;
*6 -29-10 (Lewiston Sun Journal) Paris selectboard appointed 2 new members to the NPSW board: Barbara Payne, and David Stanley. The selectboard reappointed Mgr. Tarr to the board as well. Norway made their new appointments July 1, and also reappointed Mgr. Holt.
*7-7-10 (agenda of NPSW meeting, and audience witness) Officers were elected from the appointed board members. One of the newly appointed board members pointed out that it was inappropriate for either of the 2 town managers to serve as officers on this new NPSW board since the managers represented towns that are served by the organization. In fact the new member questioned the 2 managers even being voting members. Six (out of the newly appointed 7) board members were present, and the new board member's concern was out-voted.
Mgr. Tarr spoke strongly about wanting to continue on that board as president, even though not a resident of Paris as the other appointed Paris board members are. In spite of the new member's concern, Tarr was elected by the board members to serve as president of the NPSW board; Mgr. Holt was not re elected as treasurer, however, and D. Stanley was elected to serve in that capacity.
Returning to the question asked by the new board member, above: is it appropriate for a town manager - or two of them, in this case - to serve as a voting member, or, even more to the point, as a president - on the board of an organization that serves and is funded by the town being run by said manager?
The emergency basis for that original arrangement was a 4 month interval with specific needs, and both towns are fortunate that their respective managers were willing - and able - to take over and bring things along to a reasonable juncture. If there were extra duties for any staff members in the respective town offices of these managers each wearing 2 hats, working on a temporary basis to clean up a difficult situation was just that: temporary. People will pitch in, things can get done if everybody helps. But not indefinitely....
[editor's note: As a disclaimer relevant to the following information, and other like information in our posts, it is not TPR's intent to debate or interpret law; only to point out, from time to time, the existence of various points of law.]
In the Municipal Officer's Manual,published by Maine Municipal Association, there is reference to the behavior of municipal officials and how these officials are to serve the interests of the public. [editor's note: MMA's opinions on standard practice are commonly accepted in most municipalities. ]
In Chapter 2, "Board of Municipal Officers," under the topic "Conflict of Interest," the manual states: Maine law encompasses four "conflict of interest" situations that can occur in municipal government: *financial conflict of interest; *incompatibility of office; *prohibited reappointments or employment; *bias.
Is there a case for "incompatibility of office" for Mgr. Tarr? MMA Manual's discussion on the topic is linked here.
Also consider this: Two administrative jobs, both time consuming, both serving the public, both requiring the additional support of others besides the administrator.
But. The taxpayers in Paris have hired a town manager, with a competitive salary, as well as generous benefits. The NPSW administrative office is not paid, as far as TPR understands. Are we taxpayers, therefore, subsidizing this second administrative position through the work of other town employees? And, is the paying job - the running of the town of Paris - getting short shrift? Are things getting done properly? And how would we know? Who would jeopardize their job to say so publicly?
Whose interest is being served?
There is a new regional grant program currently being explored using NPSW officials, spearheaded by its president; new options for handling of solid waste in general are on the horizon. The workload for the NPSW administrator is going to require more and more attention.
This is a situation that needs to be looked at by our elected officials in Paris.The responsibility for this falls squarely in their lap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)