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.
