Toward the end of Monday's select board meeting, Selectman Kurtz made a statement that included his observation about "negative energy."
"Looking back to early March of this year, I'm struck by the amount of...negative energy this board has expended as a group and as individual members - and I include myself in this. My hope for the board is that we become more proactive, less reactive."
It is a good thing to look for ways to avoid being trapped by negative energy. That kind of energy can come from individual obsessions - and we've all seen that in a public setting. It can also come from a selfish and misguided group directive - whether vendetta or personal agenda or prejudice - or sometimes just plain ignorance and fear.
It is always a destructive force. It is manipulative and belittling; and almost always, at its roots, it is dishonest and deceptive in its presentation.
But. Negative energy should not be confused with a positive force fighting against a negative thing. When things do not work correctly, do not happen fairly, do not function honestly and openly, than there is a critical need to identify and restore. That takes courage and tenacity. This is not a task for the faint hearted...nobody much likes it when someone points out the cracks and holes....
Point: Management of the town's finances is a major component of a municipal machine. In June 2009 the town lost Mgr. Jackson, who had brought some long needed order to a chaotic financial situation that had developed in Paris over many years. We have just lost Finance Officer Gendreau who kept a steady hand through a disastrous, though short lived, takeover regime. She also provided guidance when a new full time manager - and chief finance officer - beginning Jan.2010, brought his own understanding to the financial management of Paris
So, now we are left with a niggling question: Do we have a current town manager who brings the best possible judgment to bear on Paris' money matters? Years upon years of municipal experience do not necessarily make that a sure thing..
Just two examples would be:
*From January to April 2010, Mgr. Tarr insisted that money put aside for TIFF payments needed to be budgeted in a way that would cost the town twice. [TPR posting Better check your figures, 1-12-2010]
[editor's note: TIFF = a long term financing arrangement involving tax incentives for businesses to repay towns for infrastructure.]
Financial Officer Gendreau discovered early on what had been misunderstood; but the new manager was reluctant to accept that Skowhegan had used a unique formula for their handling of a TIFF arrangement, and that Paris had different factors and required a different set up.
After a good amount of discussion and input from some focused individuals, the new manager's budgeting plan was finally replaced with the plan used successfully in Paris before he arrived.
* A more recent example is the issue of interpreting the process for how money is to be spent, and involves taking responsibility #1 for learning how things are done - by asking, by reading, by investigating, by figuring out; and #2 by not blaming other people and other things for what should be shouldered by one's own self.
The issue in question is the now infamous set of vehicles, a police cruiser, and later a golf cart. [TPR posting Well Placed Questions, 11-29-2010; and Backtracking, 11-29-2010] The decision maker in question was Mgr. Tarr; the person blamed for not getting it right - Police Chief Verrier - who himself should have been able to figure things out and be responsible; the thing blamed was a purchasing policy - for not being in front of his eyeballs and playing recorded directions to do this about that....
And was there learning from one example to the other? Evidently not. The unfolding of the second issue looked remarkably similar to the first....
Once again, TPR wishes to point out that no single incident, or situation of concern brought up in reference to Mgr. Tarr, is necessarily of complete and totally disastrous proportion. And, somehow, there always seems to be a way to explain away or excuse each incident or situation... explanations that often seem to change depending on the audience...
It is the sum-total of all the situations that makes the impact - the decision-making trend they indicate. Is there a pattern here?
One is left doubting the level of leadership skills and qualifications.....
Point: The following is a continuation of an argument TPR has been making for some time now. It is directly related to the inappropriateness of Mgr. Tarr's position on the NPSW board, an additional responsibility he takes on beyond the responsibility of running Paris.
But, rather than focus on the involved skills, or lack of them, TPR would like to be very clear about the fact that Mgr. Tarr is on that board in the first place because the Paris selectboard appointed him. He is their responsibility and theirs to make a decision about. Just as is correspondingly true for Mgr. Holt in Norway.
The "incompatibility of office," [TPR Starting the New Year, 1-2-2011] is less a function of the person than of the job itself. The town manager, as part of his duties, is responsible for formulating the town's budget, i.e., gathering data from all department heads and boards (e.g., NPSW) who receive and spend taxpayers' dollars.
The president of NPSW, as part of his duties, would be responsible for formulating (even if the work is done by a committee and he only approves it) NPSW's budget, which is ultimately conveyed to the town for funding. This includes making a determination of how many tax dollars the town is asked to budget to pay NPSW.
The two positions (town manager and president of NPSW) are incompatible, as the town manager cannot be asked to approve his own work. This would be the same as the town manager serving on an SAD board - which formulates a budget that is conveyed to the town. [editor's note: Refer to the MMA discussion in the 1-2-2011 link just above. SAD's are specifically mentioned.]
Two questions and an incompatibility of office. Food for thought....
