Sunday, July 25, 2010

We all have a stake

Citizen reminder: special town meeting tomorrow (Monday 7-26-10) at the Paris fire station, 7pm.

There have been reminders and highlights in the Advertiser Democrat, the Sun Journal, and The Paris Reporter. The warrant itself has been posted in the Paris town office for almost 2 weeks, and was in TPR on Monday the 19th. The warrant is posted again here.

We all have a stake in how money is spent in the operation of this town, whether we are literally paying money in, or a grant or endowment is being spent on our behalf. We expect straight information, and honest accountability. We will not be patient with spin - and in case any elected official needs to be reminded, we know spin when we hear it.

We citizens almost lost control of this town once. Because several hundred of us rallied, and fought back, we did not. But it is so easy for things to slip though the cracks....

It would hardly take more than one person with a personal need for power to begin to skew our direction; or one individual who operated in a way that included only a select few to begin to narrow public visibility; or a single elected official who might consistently propose only one way of thinking and work to urge others to that personal perspective, a perspective that may or may not reflect what is best for the whole town; and then it would only remain for enough voters to be too busy to look....

It is our expectation that our elected officials have, at all times, the best interests of this town in their minds and actions. But they need to hear from us to know if that is happening. If we don't reflect to them how their actions effect us, they cannot know for sure if they are meeting our expectations. It is a team effort - one component listening to the other and then moving in accord.

We need to speak up. Ask questions. Expect answers. Say Yes - we agree - this is just what we need! or...No - absolutely not - not in my town you don't!

After the town meeting the selectboard will hold their regular meeting. Posted here is the agenda, as well as a list of various town committee members to be appointed.

Our elected officials have a long night ahead of them. They have been having quite a few long nights, as a matter of fact, as do the town manager and town clerk who assist the board, including attending all board meetings. We citizens cannot expect them to act in a vacuum - we are responsible to them just as they are to us. If we can't always get to meetings, we can talk with them apart from meetings, by phone or in person; we can email; we can go to the town office and request information - with advance notice our hard working staff there will assist any question-asker.

But we have to take the initiative. This town belongs to all of us - and any time things even hint otherwise, we need to gather up any red flags, call as many people as we can get a hold of, and do something about it.

Because - if we don't - it's our own fault if we lose control of our town.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Spend our money, cont.

In preparation for the Special Town Meeting July 26th, fire station, 7pm, the previous post focused on Article #2, an ordinance for a moratorium for any plans for a medical dispensary in Paris, and Article #3, authorizing payment for an out-of-court settlement.

The next article challenges Paris voters to step back and take a look at what they are willing to accept for services vs. what they are willing to pay for. TPR does not have an interest in advising readers what to think; only that we must think. And then stand up for what we believe is right and vote accordingly.

[editor's note: warrant article's official wording has been paraphrased by TPR.]

Article #4: a proposal to pay for staffing the Paris Fire Department in such a way as to provide more thorough fire fighting coverage.

The proposal settled on 2 options to fund paying trained individuals to be on call at the fire station itself for a specified number of hours. The dollar amount requested is $90,995; and, for this year, it must be raised as an amendment to the municipal budget approved by voters in June. Only the options for paying (not the details of the operation) are listed on the warrant: (1) raise part of the amount by additional taxes and take part from a reserve fund; (2) raise the entire amount by additional taxes.

There has been citizen request that there will be a clear and simple one page synopsis of the entire question: of need, suggested solution(s), and description of what the pay covers, to hand out at the special town meeting on the 26th, so citizens will know what questions to ask.

There is no avoiding the serious need for this discussion as well as a decision. However, we should bear in mind that this decision (no matter which payment option is accepted for this year) will require $90,995, or more, every year to come or until a different plan is put in place. It is a decision that requires citizens to put our money where our mouths are.

It requires that we all ask every single question we can think of.

We have to hope there will be answers that suffice, not only from one selectman who often gives the impression he feels he alone has all the answers anyone may need, but from all elected officials, the town manager, and, most specifically, Chief Frost, and any others who may have been involved in doing studies with him on this topic.

Article #5: the question of the legislative body of the town (the voters) setting the date when newly elected selectboard members are seated.

The issue in this article seems to focus on not accepting - in fact, rescinding - the vote of the legislative body (Paris voters) who, in 1999, exercised their option, as allowed by Title 30-A M.S.R.A. §2526, to set July 1 as the date newly elected members are to be seated.

One currently sitting selectman has been vigorously active in this question.

[ editor's note: TPR does not have an investment on when new members are seated. What matters is that the legislative body vote, and then the procedure is consistent each year.]

TPR would offer the following observations:

* that the settlement payment referred to in Article #2 was agreed on for a law suit having as its premise the binding nature of that legislative vote;

*The law firm of Kurtz & Perry gave a written opinion in a 2005 letter that the 1999 vote was not valid;

*Selectman Kurtz may still have an investment in protecting the conclusion his firm presented in that 2005 letter;

* Title 30-A M.R.S.A. §2526 includes several subsections, some rather general, and (1) it might be possible to cherry pick pertinent phrases of choice; and, (2) it might be possible to come up with an interpretation that could seem to provide an answer for more than one situation

* There are a few individuals in this community who may have their own personal reasons for wanting the 1999 vote to be officially rescinded, in order to validate some past personal action.

The pertinent point here is that there would be no reason for this question even being on the warrant of this special town meeting if the 1999 vote had no teeth.

Moral to this story? Do not be fooled by spin. Make your own decision.

Monday, July 19, 2010

They're going to spend our money...

...in decisions made July 26th at the Special Town Meeting, 7 pm, Paris fire station. Evidently the board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting afterwards. Late night...

Our selectboard is certainly capable of making decisions without us, decisions that direct the management of this town; they are, after all, tax payers themselves. However, their decisions direct the use of our money, as well; and they direct the operation of this municipal machine in our behalf. Since the only time we have any real influence is when we speak up at town meetings and vote - be it by referendum or open vote - we need to be there on the 26th.

After electing a moderator, there are 4 items on the warrant. Two items focus on portions of Paris' legislative process, and two involve the use of our municipal funds.

[editor's note: TPR has paraphrased the actual wording of the articles below.]

Article 2: to enact an ordinance for a moratorium on any plans for a medical marijuana dispensary in Paris. Both The Sun Journal and the Advertiser Democrat have given press space to the issue; and the public hearing held before the regularly scheduled selectboard meeting 7-12-10 was intended as an opportunity to ask questions. However: questions should be entertained at any point the public needs information, and if an individual has a question (as opposed to an old, over-used gripe....) this is an opportunity.

Article 3: to ask voters to authorize money to be made available from the appropriate fund in the town's coffers to pay former town manager Sharon Jackson the out-of-court settlement that was arrived at on June 24th.

There have been some good efforts recently to make a complete accounting so that citizens can come to grips with the extent of the damage caused by the impulsive personal decision of 3 selfish individuals.

This community does have to heal and move on; but questions have never been met comfortably - never encouraged - by the selectboard. Or, worse, one individual at the front table has taken the floor and talked unceasingly while the real question went unanswered.

One particdular selectman, along with some others, had been adamant that "she should not receive one more nickel from us." Somehow, this selectman has been able to ignore the fact that a settlement agreement was, nevertheless, arrived at; and, with that settlement, the indication that the town didn't have a choice - because the premise of the law suit was viable, and the town's position would not likely have withstood court scrutiny. This particular selectman is choosing to down play the whole affair by forging his own personal interpretation and accounting of the whole affair, apparently in the hopes of ...what? diverting attention to his interpretation? Why?

We - without the ill-advised counsel of any individual who tries to insist he knows what's best for all of us - must move on, using our own energy and coming to our own understanding . We need to be straight forward and courageous, and get on with it.

If there are questions, ask them. There are going to be people at this special town meeting with both questions and answers. But this has to be the end. Everybody, in this whole sorry mess, lost out. Many people dropped many balls, and many opportunities were missed. Some opportunities still exist, but it would take extraordinary courage for an individual to speak up at this point. Perhaps...?

Article 4, a proposal to pay for staffing the Paris Fire Department in such a way as to provide more thorough fire fighting coverage, and Article 5, the question, still, again, of the legislative body of this town setting the date when newly elected selectboard members are seated.

Both of these articles will be addressed in another TPR posting.

Paris voters need to educate themselves, and come on the 26th to be sure decisions are made that reflect our wishes. Tell your friends, bring a neighbor.

This is our town; we almost lost control of it once, and because we rallied, we got it back. But it can slip away from us so easily. All it takes is someone with a personal agenda... and then for enough people not to look...

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Conduct unbecoming

A final point worth noting, almost at the end of this endless meeting:

Printed in part of the 7-12-10 Sun Journal "Our View," titled "Do not conduct business in secret" is a commentary that is a reference to the state's Freedom of Access Law. The commentary spoke directly to Selectman Kurtz requesting that the board elect its chairman by ballot, arguing the law required it. The Journal's editorial writer took issue with his argument, saying that the secret ballot was not correct because it did not allow the public to see how each member voted.

Selectperson Smart, looking to be certain the public is not lead to believe the town is operating in any way other than openly and honestly, acting with Town manager Tarr, called Maine Municipal Association for an opinion on that voting process. The MMA attorney who responded - verbally, and in an email - said, that, in accordance with the 1975 Freedom of Access Law, written after the statute Kurtz quoted to argue for the written ballot, it would not be correct to vote by written ballot in this case.

Selectman Kurtz was outraged, and wasted no time saying so, right down to his bald statement that the MMA lawyer was wrong. And that is his right as a citizen, even as a selectman. What he cannot do is hold himself out as some sort of infallible lawyer for the town of Paris.

There was a good deal of smirking; but Smart stood her ground, and urged a second vote to ratify the first. There was outright giggling and not a little mocking from the chair and vice chair. Selectman Herrick, who had seconded Smart's motion for purposes of discussion, provided a voice for the need for openness, and the vote was taken openly by a show of hands.

Opinions vary, lawyers vary, statutes can be interpreted various ways. Select board members can have different approaches; they can even openly disagree. But giggles? Shame.

Three hours, 23 minutes...

... and 10 thousand words later... and not to mention an executive session of approximately 25 minutes to approve Paris Police Department's Teamsters Union contract, Monday's selectboard meeting finally crawled to a close.

Long agenda? Critical discussions? Disagreements? Information gathering? Public discord?

Not a particularly long agenda...on paper.

In addition to the earlier post, below, re. the accounting of the aftermath of the 6-22-09 firing of our former town manager, there was an issue or two that resulted in critical discussions, even some disagreement, e.g., Paris Fire Department's looking for approval for an additional piece of equipment - as well as the funding for some full-time, paid coverage to supplement our volunteer fire fighting force.

NPCTV stayed to record the whole meeting. Thank you, Steve Galvin! It is TPR's understanding that the audio portion of the recording is fully functional this time -a battery malfunctioned last meeting. Regular viewing time begins Sunday at 6:30 pm. Three hours plus is a long time to sit; if you have limited time, TPR suggests tuning in about 9 pm and watching 'til the end, for a hard-to-beat snapshot of how this current board conducts itself.

A fair amount of unscheduled time was occupied with chastisements, judgments, and directives for how individuals approaching the bench...oops... the selectboard should prepare themselves and their documents. Any possible hints that could facilitate functioning of any process or procedure were lost in the arrogance and hostility of delivery by the individual selectman in question.

The words are different, the time is different, but the feel is reminiscent of a board chairman not so long ago whose ultimatum of choice was "You're Done!" The individual in question this time around is not even chairman. Yet....

Another considerable chunk of time was focused on one warrant item for the 5 item warrant special town meeting coming up July 26. The warrant came (or was asked to be sent) unfinished, evidently, to the selectboard from the town manager, presumably; and not less than 1 hour and 15 minutes were spent "word-smithing," suggesting sub-paragraphs, debating brackets vs. parentheses, sending the town clerk (who acts as secretary for the board meetings) out of the room at least 3 times to the word processor and printer for re-dos.

Why is the selectboard spending all this time on just mechanics? For one article? Is this not what we pay staff (including the town manager) for? In the days before town managers, perhaps things had to be done this way.

TPR gets it that selectmen can run things pretty much as they choose, but was this just a preening session for a marathon involving essentially 2 selectmen with many words,( or, perhaps, one selectman with many words countered by the other with equally many words) ending with Article 4, as readers will see printed on the warrant referred to above? The version that is almost verbatim to what was proposed one hour earlier by another selectperson, but totally disregarded?

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

A gathering of thoughts

From a concerned Paris voter last night:
"I think it's very important that we find out what our final cost is...we should get 100% [of the information ] ... the taxpayers ought to know just what this whole thing cost 'em - all the costs associated.

...[And then,] I would say, that this would be over with....Somehow this town needs to heal from this, needs to go forward, and I think this is the time to do it."

The gentleman continued: "I do question whether ...the town might owe our former town manager an apology...I think we probably do....

From what I know about this whole thing and the way things were done and what happened, I think that maybe we owe her an apology - which is an ethical question, not a legal question; and as we all know, there is a big difference between what's legal and what's right. I would suggest that maybe we could weigh that a little bit.

...for us to go forward in this town, we need to get this behind us...I really hope that somehow we attack this so that we don't keep revisiting this over, and over, and over again."

Selectman Kurtz: "Somebody's made an accounting that shows 130-140 thousand dollars; but my question is, unless we're going to give serious thought to pursuing these birds legally, what difference does it make? ...the money's spent, it's gone. What...what's the issue? Why do we have to pin this down?"

Selectman Herrick: "I think, Ted that as Jean [Selectperson Jean Smart] has said, and as the gentleman asked at last month's meeting [see TPR posting 6-29-10 A Good Question] ...y'know, to embrace it, to get my hands around the whole thing...I'd like to know what the total cost is.

If we're talking about a lot of taxpayers' money, I think that whatever assessment it takes to come up with a valid total amount, it's in the interest of the public to know exactly how much that was.

Sel. K: "Well, it's going to come out to 140-150 thousand dollars - we'll get a precise number. My question is, do we want to give any serious thought to pursuing these birds? Otherwise we're just talking about spilled milk.

Sel. H: "I think it's irrelevant whether we pursue 'em or not, knowing how much it cost the taxpayers to do what took place. I'm not interested at this point in pursuing...but with that said, I don't think it depends on whether we pursue the issue, vs. whether we get a full clear picture of what the total cost is."

Further in the conversation, another concerned Paris voter spoke up. She said, her voice increasing with passion as she spoke, "I guess I agree with [the first speaker, re. not revisiting the issue over and over ] but, the other side of it is, we need not to forget the turmoil that we've been through this last year, thanks to Mr. Ripley, Mr. Young, and Mr. Ivey. And I want their names in the record so nobody forgets."

It should be noted that earlier in the meeting, before the above comments, town manager Tarr gave an accounting of the costs of the aftermath of the firing; and even though it was far more realistic than the $50,000 casually tossed around by Chairman Glover and Vice-chair Kurtz the meeting before, Selectperson Smart asked Tarr if she could come in today and look at the figures on record with him and see if there might not be more to include in the town's official report.

TPR agrees *with Selectperson Smart that the town's official report should be as inclusive as humanly possible; *with the first speaker, that healing needs to be allowed to happen, and this town needs to consider an apology to our former manager - not just empty words, but a real statement of accountability and honest reflection; *with Selectman Herrick that knowing what something is - getting one's hands around it - is a step toward understanding it, finding a way to handle it and learn from it; and *with the last speaker above, that we need not to forget what Troy R. Ripley, Glen W. Young, and David W. Ivey cost this town - in dollars, in public trust, in lives torn up, and in time lost forever

Sunday, July 11, 2010

On your calendar

Monday 7-12-10 Paris selectboard will meet at 7 PM in the Paris town office. TPR was not able to procure an agenda in advance - but there will most certainly be business. Various identifiable cars have been seen in the parking lot prior to.

A question that needs to be asked: Do you (selectboard and administration) have a total amount - to date - prepared to share with citizens as to the cost of the firing of S. Jackson and its aftermath? Never mind that June legal bills are not in yet - we can all manage the additional figures.

What do you have for a total right now? Is it more than $32, 502.76? More than $81,612.09? If not, why not?

[editor's note: be sure you have read the prior two posts outlining documented costs.]

Why wouldn't you want every paying voter to know what 3 selfish and vindictive individuals are costing the town of Paris? Why not? Why would you want to hide that?
.....................................................................................................
Also for the citizen calendar: it seems that a special town meeting on July 26 has been set to discuss the above costs, in addition to other warrant items - that will be addressed on this site.

Friday, July 9, 2010

A few more things...

To add to Paris taxpayers' $125 K-plus cost (see previous posting) caused by politicians run amok, consider the following:

Would Paris voters have been angered enough to mount recalls for 2 elected officials if the vendetta firing hadn't taken place? While the judgment of the 2 recalled officials wasn't always outstanding, would there have been enough energy to mount the large, sustained citizen effort to recall both selectmen if there had not been a motivating factor? You be the judge.

*Cost of recall election 2-5-10 = $1632.48
*Cost of recall election 2-8-10 = $1482.48
*Cost of special election 3-9-10=$1460.84
=$4575.80

If the election costs are added to the $125,184.34 accounting (see previous posting), the total cost becomes $129,760.14

Rather a large lump to hide under any kind of rug, no matter which figures one chooses to include in the lump...

No one in Paris has such a lack of things to do that beating a dead horse is the activity of choice; however, it is ludicrous to think that intelligent citizens can't figure out things for themselves - that they would accept a watered down explanation given in order to make things look better and people feel better.

Same goes for trying to make it look like the settlement figure was a gift, *[see note below] rather than the exact amount owed - and requested - for back pay and severance pay figured at the higher rate of pay using the correct termination date of Oct. 09 vs. the invalid June 09 date. (see previous posting)

*[editor's note: heard from a member at the front table, last selectboard meeting 6-28-10: "She now has this sum of money, and she can do anything she wants with it." ]

So, let's drop the spin.

The Town of Paris did not win this, folks; and nobody should be crowing about what a great job was done on behalf of the town and Sharon Jackson. The settlement amount was correct because it is what she calculated she was owed for the specific period of time she outlined. To their credit, our selectboard responded to that.

Had the town of Paris been the winner, we would not be paying anything on the list of documented costs in the accounting posted below. Had the town been the winner, we would never have lost Sharon Jackson.

Nope. We - and others - lost all around, because of one impetuous, selfish action taken by 3 elected officials, supposedly in our name, but really in their own.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

The hundred thousand dollar question

The citizen's question at the 6-28-10 selectboard meeting was: "How much is this all going to cost?" [editor's note: "this" refers to the aftermath of the vendetta firing of former town manager Sharon Jackson by the majority on the newly installed board 6-22-09.]

The citizen expanded his question, adding "I mean all of it, including the paying of double managers, payouts, how much it would have cost if we hadn't hired...." At that moment 2 selectmen plus the town manager interrupted on top of each other to assure the questioner - and the audience - that there would most certainly be a thorough accounting.

Financial Clerk and Deputy Treasurer Sharon Gendreau keeps excellent records, and there is most certainly information to document a thorough accounting. However, in case the town's accounting only reports the details of the payout to Sharon Jackson as a result of the final mediated settlement out-of-court for Jackson vs. the Town of Paris, TPR will report, from its own research, information gathered from a variety of sources, over a period of time.

Financial information reported in this posting is consistent with public information on record at the Paris Town Office. Any editorial conclusions are strictly the purview of The Paris Reporter.

In an effort to frame the past year in a more focused perspective for this accounting, for those who think in a visual mode, TPR offers a timeline overview, linked here.

TPR's accounting:
(1) Total payout for S Jackson prior to mediation:
From 6-30-09 to 11-03-09, salary & benefits = $49,109.33

(2) Total owed to S Jackson to date after the 6-24-10 out-of-court settlement (see breakdown):
From 7-1-09 to 11-10-09, back pay at rate of July 1 higher rate of pay because 6-22-09 vote to terminate was not considered valid; and from 11-17-09 to 3-09-10, severance pay from the date of the accepted termination date , the 10-09 ratification of the 6-22 termination = $32,502.76

(3) Total of 1 & 2:
When everything owed former town mgr. S. Jackson is paid = $81,612.09

Continuing, we consider, inasmuch as bills have been presented, the following directly related costs:

(4) Legal costs for this topic, see details, from 7-09 through 5 -10: [editor's note: Readers will need to keep in mind, then, that this figure is going to be significantly higher.]
8-19-09, invoice #3312150, through 6-16-10, invoice # 3336469 = $9,651.81

(5) Total of 3 & 4:
Total payout after mediation, $81,612.09, plus legal costs to date, $9,651.81 = $91,263.90

For those of weak heart, stop now. But Paris tax payers have already paid more in related costs. Consider:

(6) Cost of interim manager after firing real manager:
7-1-09 to 12 - 31-09 = $17,439.30

(7) Cost of current town manager while S. Jackson was already supposed to be being paid:
1-01-10 through 3-2-10 = $15,471.53

[editor's note: The current town manager's rate of pay may seem somewhat higher than expected because his benefits include health insurance for the town mgr. and his wife. Not something much talked about...]

(8) Cost of paying 2 managers at a time:
Cost for S. Jackson payout,plus legal costs, total, $91,263.90, plus interim mgr., $17,439.30, plus current mgr. for 2 mos., $15,471.53 = $124,174.73

(9) Cost for advertising for current town manager:
Advertising, 12-09, for the position still vacant from the 6-22-09 firing = $1009.61

(10) Running total...so far:
$125,184.34

Lest any of this be swept under the rug... in the guise of Paris is just fine... doing business as usual.... Just exactly what does that mean, business as usual?

We, the tax payers, should trust now, right? Are you serious? Selectboard and administration will have to prove that to us.