Continuing in the vein of the leadership of our municipal machine, and the implications of having some or not, TPR posting on 2-13-11, The effect of leadership, referred to a "2-part dilemma" happening in Paris. The multifaceted issue (currently promoted to full blown crisis in town) was not only (1) the decision itself; (2) how the decision was - or was not - being made for ATV use of one specific public road in Paris; but (3) the additional effect of fallout from obviously ineffective decision making on the part of the selectboard.
The matter has progressed far beyond one simple black and white decision. It becomes clearer and clearer that the whole town has a stake in what precedent is set here. A radically different approach is going to have to be considered in order to move forward.
All of the above compromises only part two of the dilemma.
Part one as the 2-13 article stated, was "how the decision makers - our selectboard - function in general."
Consider the role - and responsibility - of each member of our Paris selectboard. Each has one fifth of the power granted to the whole board as it (the board) makes decisions that voters hope will be for the good of the whole town.
Even though individual members bring their own experiences and perspectives to board deliberations, any final decision should be made in the light of what's best for the whole town. Otherwise we end up with the ragged operation of Paris' previous select board - that made no pretense whatsoever of motives beyond special interests and bullying tactics.
There need to be checkpoints, question-askers, standards constantly being evaluated in the board's operation, to insure things proceed with whole board knowledge and cooperation for the good of the whole town. Otherwise the leadership role of each board member becomes ineffective, leaving the possibility for an individual (or, in the case of last year's board, more than one individual) to respond to interests that are not always whole-town-oriented.
Our board has one member who is also a practicing attorney. Is that a good thing or a less than good thing? It would depend how that skill is applied in his role as a selectman. [editor's note: TPR's 2-13 article offered a "what-if:" using "background experience skills to take action in a way that could be interpreted as choosing sides in an argument that affects the whole town"]
This lawyer-board member was elected June 2010, running unopposed; there was no mandate saying the voters wanted a lawyer on the board to run the board and influence its decisions. This individual was elected to be merely 1/5 of everyone else. His skill and opinions aside, his responsibility was - and is - to work up front with his fellow board members, no rules applying to him any differently than anyone else.
Yet, according to a matter referred to in emails between 2 board members in a front page article in the Advertiser Democrat 2-24-11, "ATV battle getting ugly" this individual does not deny meeting - in his law office - with certain members of the ATV group in question. There is no way to know what actually transpired, of course; but, one could wonder if it was coincidence that both the 2-24 Advertiser Democrat article, as well as a Sun Journal article 2-25-11, "ATV club member says he might sue Paris Board of Selectmen" quote those ATV members using the s-u-e word?
Emails are public record. Clearly the Advertiser Democrat isn't the only one to have seen them. One has to assume that other board members have also seen them. Was the whole board part of this plan for the lawyer-selectman to meet in his law office? Why would a whole board sabotage what appeared to be a straightforward discussion toward a solution that would serve the whole town and not just a special interest group - on either side of the issue? (Even if the decision-making process could have been more thoroughly prepared and executed....)
Was the decision to meet with these club members a whole board decision? Or was the meeting initiated by the lawyer himself? If this meeting was an action taken only by the lawyer-selectman, then he has run roughshod over Title 30-A M.R.S.A.§2635 which directs the board of selectmen to act as a body in "any matter relating to the welfare of the town."
In the 2-14 Advertiser Democrat article, in response to his colleague's observation that he had "given the appearance of representing them [the specific ATV owners] about a legal issue," this lawyer-selectman responded "My actions might appear that way, but..".
Consider what the Municipal Officers Manual published by the Maine Municipal Association has to say on the topic of conflict of interest, (citing Title 30-A M.R.S.A.§2605), specifically as it relates to appearance of impropriety: "...a board member would be well advised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict...in order to maintain the public's confidence in the board's work."
[editor's note: Ironically, MMA legal opinions have not always appeared highly regarded in this lawyer-selectman's public discourse. Yet, it is for MMA that he is insisting questions be crafted to provide an opinion involving the legality of selectboard actions on the matter. He stated during the 2-14 meeting: "...we will take it upon ourselves to get a legal opinion from MMA,..... I think that opinion is going to go a long way in clarifying..If what we did is perfectly legal that's going to put a different light on it." ]
OK, selectboard. This is a problem of board function that needs to be addressed. And it needs to be addressed in public - because there has been enough of what feels like behind closed doors. More and more, the public is watching.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A note
Editor's note: Though somewhat different in content and focus, the following 3 articles are intended to be a unit, and were written in the order presented. These last many weeks TPR has found that items of concern and interest in our town government have not lined themselves up neatly for public commentary.
TPR works to gather details that can be documented, or at least observations and questions that will produce documentation if our readers ask the questions. This process takes time - and does not always lend itself to a schedule of regularly published articles.
There is a lot here. There is information that readers may not know, and some that may be familiar but with a different perspective. There is a lot going on in our town, and some of it is a cause for concern. We need to be watchful. This is our town - and that means all of us.
TPR works to gather details that can be documented, or at least observations and questions that will produce documentation if our readers ask the questions. This process takes time - and does not always lend itself to a schedule of regularly published articles.
There is a lot here. There is information that readers may not know, and some that may be familiar but with a different perspective. There is a lot going on in our town, and some of it is a cause for concern. We need to be watchful. This is our town - and that means all of us.
A question of leadership
Leadership is an elusive quality. Hard to measure, easier to sense. Hard to quantify, easier to notice with the naked eye in the responses of individuals; in the actions of peers, elected officials, hired staff and crews.
Leadership. Does that mean standing up for what one believes and saying so? Does that mean seeing an opportunity for a personal agenda and getting everybody to run with you?
Does it mean that whoever speaks loudest and trickiest wins?
Do we have a town manager who is devoted exclusively to taking care of the entity he was hired - by us - to tend? Who uses straightforward management strategies that safeguard the important financial and personnel issues in this town?
Do we have a selectboard chairman who firmly stands up to wrong doing? Do we have a selectboard board full of individuals who consistently question wrongful spending and management procedures - with more than bluster?
Are they individuals who are concerned about the ethical behavior of their own board members?
Land use is a hot topic currently. Recreational use of land is sometimes at odds with landowner concerns. Both perspectives matter, especially when parties on each side are taxpayers in the same town. When policies are clear and procedures well established, conflict can be addressed and worked through.
But when there has been a history of no clear procedure for decision making, when word of mouth and decisions made by shots from the hip prevail, then...then, tempers flare, feelings get out of hand, and what is in the best interest of the whole town is not clear; ...and ...
...the dangers of - and opportunities for - personal agendas wait in the wings to confuse the issue.
Is such a thing so very bad? Let sleeping dogs lie, and all of that? Don't rock the boat? Why make a big deal?
Depends on who's being served, doesn't it?
Leadership. Does that mean standing up for what one believes and saying so? Does that mean seeing an opportunity for a personal agenda and getting everybody to run with you?
Does it mean that whoever speaks loudest and trickiest wins?
Do we have a town manager who is devoted exclusively to taking care of the entity he was hired - by us - to tend? Who uses straightforward management strategies that safeguard the important financial and personnel issues in this town?
Do we have a selectboard chairman who firmly stands up to wrong doing? Do we have a selectboard board full of individuals who consistently question wrongful spending and management procedures - with more than bluster?
Are they individuals who are concerned about the ethical behavior of their own board members?
Land use is a hot topic currently. Recreational use of land is sometimes at odds with landowner concerns. Both perspectives matter, especially when parties on each side are taxpayers in the same town. When policies are clear and procedures well established, conflict can be addressed and worked through.
But when there has been a history of no clear procedure for decision making, when word of mouth and decisions made by shots from the hip prevail, then...then, tempers flare, feelings get out of hand, and what is in the best interest of the whole town is not clear; ...and ...
...the dangers of - and opportunities for - personal agendas wait in the wings to confuse the issue.
Is such a thing so very bad? Let sleeping dogs lie, and all of that? Don't rock the boat? Why make a big deal?
Depends on who's being served, doesn't it?
Who's in charge?
In the question of leadership, who decides a need is a need? And how it gets dealt with? According to the Purchasing Policy, an Administrative Regulation for Town of Paris reinstituted 4-26-06, anything over $3200 must be approved by the municipal officers - the selectboard.
Is this what our selectboard believes it did on January 24th when it authorized the emergency, lickety-split purchase of a new plow at the no-bid purchase price of $8950?
Town Mgr. Tarr presented the emergency request under "other" on his portion of the agenda, [transcript of that portion of the meeting] complete with "...and we need to do it ASAP, like tomorrow;" price tag of $8950; and the photo of a new plow, using it as a visual example to discuss metal fatigue and ramifications of such to make it crystal clear that welding was absolutely not going to work any more on this useless old plow; and a final "I assume you want to be able to plow the roads and so forth. We cannot do it with the piece of equipment we have. If you're satisfied with that I'll go ahead and purchase it tomorrow."
What selectboard member is not aware of snow and roads and the need for working plows in the winter in Maine? Of course red flags will be slow to come up - what kind of careless elected official is not going to be concerned about this sort of "emergency" ?
A question came up about process: "...emergency situation. Are we subject to opt out not to bid or something? Any language in the process?"
No one in the entire room, board, management, or audience, had a copy of the policy. Chairman Glover tried to remember some of it , but Mgr. Tarr was quick to point out that Glover wasn't quite right. The manager paraphrased the rule that department heads - including the manager - can approve up to $3200, and that the board must approve anything over.
Mgr. Tarr recommended that the board "set aside whatever exists," evidently referring to any existing purchasing policy that no one remembered anyway.
Someone questioned why this particular model was the only one considered. Answer = the company had made the original plow, and this model would likely fit the truck now in use. Mgr. Tarr also felt that the new plow would arrive in very short order, and all would be well. (This was an emergency, after all - speed was of the essence.)
Selectman Kurtz smoothed over any concern about not getting bids since the purchase was only in the 10K range [see transcript]; that time spent in shopping around would not balance the immediacy of the emergency.
Only in the $10,000 range? Is this the same speaker who, since he took office last March, has challenged what seems like every single penny that comes out of the town coffers?
But, it was, after all, an emergency.... The vote followed to authorize the purchase of the new plow. Mgr. Tarr politely thanked the board. Having moved beyond emergency issues, the meeting continued.
Now, if there hadn't already been issues of purchasing items outside of approved procedure, causing great hoopla at that front table (think golf cart...think police cruiser....) perhaps no one in the audience of that meeting on the 24th would even have raised an eyebrow. And if things had gone according to plan, the new plow would probably have become a non-issue.
The snows did come. And the roads did get plowed. Our highway crew is staffed with good workers.
However, the new plow did not come until 2 weeks later, Feb. 8, even though the bill of sale states it was ordered Jan.25. Alas.
So - what were the roads plowed with in the interim? Will we discover that the old, unusable, unweldable plow became magically fixed by someone? or that there was a spare plow? How did the plowing happen during those 2 weeks if things were all that dire in the emergency situation on January 24th?
Reminder: the reason for a no bid purchase was because the process had to be done quickly. ASAP, even.
Even if the bidding process would have saved only a few dollars - or none at all - who gets to claim "emergency" to circumvent the process? Who was it that named this Jan. 24th need an "emergency"?
If the plow could be fixed, even for the short term, how come the request wasn't "we need a plow ASAP, we can probably piece it together temporarily while we go out and get bids."
Bids - the correct process for amounts over $3200, according to the current purchasing policy, right there in the sentence next to the other sentence Mgr. Tarr had pretty much memorized in his head.... [check policy posted]
Questions :
*Who led who, here?
*How come the board wasn't informed well before the moment of that meeting that there was a concern.... Why wasn't this question asked a week - or more - before, and bids brought along with the request on Jan. 24th?
* Or did someone know there was a need and waited until there was an optimum moment to speak?
*Why isn't there a process to keep the board informed about such needs? If a piece is about to break, it should be noted. If a piece cannot be repaired one more time, it should be noted. Were these things noted? Was Mgr. Tarr aware of such? Did he look?
A copy of the vehicle inventory and status report given to the board back in September at the request of Selectman West does not mention the state of the plows, for instance. Where would that be listed?
*Is it wise to always rely on what someone else reports? Particularly if purchasing processes have sometimes been less than stellar in the not too distant past? Who on that board goes in to look at the equipment on a regular basis? Who even knew enough about the old plow to ask meaningful questions?
*How will those covering for less than efficient management spin this? again....
Who is running this town, anyway?
Is this what our selectboard believes it did on January 24th when it authorized the emergency, lickety-split purchase of a new plow at the no-bid purchase price of $8950?
Town Mgr. Tarr presented the emergency request under "other" on his portion of the agenda, [transcript of that portion of the meeting] complete with "...and we need to do it ASAP, like tomorrow;" price tag of $8950; and the photo of a new plow, using it as a visual example to discuss metal fatigue and ramifications of such to make it crystal clear that welding was absolutely not going to work any more on this useless old plow; and a final "I assume you want to be able to plow the roads and so forth. We cannot do it with the piece of equipment we have. If you're satisfied with that I'll go ahead and purchase it tomorrow."
What selectboard member is not aware of snow and roads and the need for working plows in the winter in Maine? Of course red flags will be slow to come up - what kind of careless elected official is not going to be concerned about this sort of "emergency" ?
A question came up about process: "...emergency situation. Are we subject to opt out not to bid or something? Any language in the process?"
No one in the entire room, board, management, or audience, had a copy of the policy. Chairman Glover tried to remember some of it , but Mgr. Tarr was quick to point out that Glover wasn't quite right. The manager paraphrased the rule that department heads - including the manager - can approve up to $3200, and that the board must approve anything over.
Mgr. Tarr recommended that the board "set aside whatever exists," evidently referring to any existing purchasing policy that no one remembered anyway.
Someone questioned why this particular model was the only one considered. Answer = the company had made the original plow, and this model would likely fit the truck now in use. Mgr. Tarr also felt that the new plow would arrive in very short order, and all would be well. (This was an emergency, after all - speed was of the essence.)
Selectman Kurtz smoothed over any concern about not getting bids since the purchase was only in the 10K range [see transcript]; that time spent in shopping around would not balance the immediacy of the emergency.
Only in the $10,000 range? Is this the same speaker who, since he took office last March, has challenged what seems like every single penny that comes out of the town coffers?
But, it was, after all, an emergency.... The vote followed to authorize the purchase of the new plow. Mgr. Tarr politely thanked the board. Having moved beyond emergency issues, the meeting continued.
Now, if there hadn't already been issues of purchasing items outside of approved procedure, causing great hoopla at that front table (think golf cart...think police cruiser....) perhaps no one in the audience of that meeting on the 24th would even have raised an eyebrow. And if things had gone according to plan, the new plow would probably have become a non-issue.
The snows did come. And the roads did get plowed. Our highway crew is staffed with good workers.
However, the new plow did not come until 2 weeks later, Feb. 8, even though the bill of sale states it was ordered Jan.25. Alas.
So - what were the roads plowed with in the interim? Will we discover that the old, unusable, unweldable plow became magically fixed by someone? or that there was a spare plow? How did the plowing happen during those 2 weeks if things were all that dire in the emergency situation on January 24th?
Reminder: the reason for a no bid purchase was because the process had to be done quickly. ASAP, even.
Even if the bidding process would have saved only a few dollars - or none at all - who gets to claim "emergency" to circumvent the process? Who was it that named this Jan. 24th need an "emergency"?
If the plow could be fixed, even for the short term, how come the request wasn't "we need a plow ASAP, we can probably piece it together temporarily while we go out and get bids."
Bids - the correct process for amounts over $3200, according to the current purchasing policy, right there in the sentence next to the other sentence Mgr. Tarr had pretty much memorized in his head.... [check policy posted]
Questions :
*Who led who, here?
*How come the board wasn't informed well before the moment of that meeting that there was a concern.... Why wasn't this question asked a week - or more - before, and bids brought along with the request on Jan. 24th?
* Or did someone know there was a need and waited until there was an optimum moment to speak?
*Why isn't there a process to keep the board informed about such needs? If a piece is about to break, it should be noted. If a piece cannot be repaired one more time, it should be noted. Were these things noted? Was Mgr. Tarr aware of such? Did he look?
A copy of the vehicle inventory and status report given to the board back in September at the request of Selectman West does not mention the state of the plows, for instance. Where would that be listed?
*Is it wise to always rely on what someone else reports? Particularly if purchasing processes have sometimes been less than stellar in the not too distant past? Who on that board goes in to look at the equipment on a regular basis? Who even knew enough about the old plow to ask meaningful questions?
*How will those covering for less than efficient management spin this? again....
Who is running this town, anyway?
The effect of leadership
Where does leadership, or better, lack of clear leadership, have its effect on how issues pertinent to the whole town are decided?
A question arises, the answer to which affects more than one party - in fact potentially many parties; the question is clearly stated; decision makers are alert, informed, and willing; not only concerns but factual input from all sides are sought and presented; rules are in place. All that remains is for a decision to be reached by decision makers. Ought to work.
But what if any one of the above items is missing - or not quite whole? Rules not clear, perhaps; concerns and factual input not adequate, maybe? That puts a heavier burden on the decision makers...and what if leadership is not strong there? Not individual leadership, making independent decisions and acting on them - but a cohesive group who can work together under good leadership for the common good, even if rules are not clear?
This poses a different, 2-part dilemma. First is the question of how the decision makers - our selectboard - function in general.
Second is that the issue in question becomes clouded with the frustrations of concerns not being properly addressed - on both sides of the question. Not only that, whatever fallout there is from ineffective action (or even inaction) becomes a force in itself and detracts from the attention the original question deserves.
This 2-part dilemma is happening right now in Paris.
Land use is the hot topic; in particular, public road use for recreational vehicles, ATVs. There has been ample coverage of the details in our local media. TPR wishes to address some perspectives.
The request from the ATV clubs for use of certain roads vs. the concerns voiced by some land owners on those roads has been brought to the selectboard...twice. The selectboard is now 0 for 2 - and a 3rd vote has been requested for the Feb.14th meeting. Looks like a pattern that can be repeated, ad infinitum, depending who has the trickiest plan and the loudest voice....
The fight has become about a single question between what has become two personal points of view. The fact that the whole town will bear the brunt of this kind of decision seems to be lost on everyone - including the board. What comes out of this dialogue, rough and unshaped as it is, could affect homeowners on all streets - and - ATV owners and how they are perceived in the future. It is not a simple issue.
But the issue can be made worse by a lack of proper direction and leadership within our selectboard. A lack in effective leadership in a group can open the door for an individual member's action in other directions, and that will obstruct, and likely prevent, productive, cohesive work.
Consider what our selectboard brings to the table as they seek to help move this town forward:
individuals from the fields of public education, legal practice, law enforcement, tax management, banking. Their varied backgrounds, plus their willingness to put in the hours for what must often seem a thankless job, makes them a potential source for strong positive energy in our town.
However, what if, because of less than strong leadership, one determined individual board member continually seems to step in and wield background experience as a bullying force? Further, what if that individual board member independently moved to use background experience skills to take action in a way that could be interpreted as choosing sides in an argument that affects the whole town?
Who should be the body to curtail behavior of that sort in an individual board member? Clearly the board itself. The issue is leadership.
Paris is a small town. Very little goes unnoticed for very long - even if it cannot always be substantiated specifically enough to be printed in the media. But people see things, they talk to each other, somehow facts emerge, if slowly sometimes.
People in Paris expect their elected officials and hired employees to focus on the things that make this town work.
Right now there is an immediate issue involving how people in this town are going to live together, whether an owner of an ATV, or an owner of property on roads ATVs might travel on. That's the problem to focus on. A solution to this problem will require genuine leadership and setting aside personal agendas.
A question arises, the answer to which affects more than one party - in fact potentially many parties; the question is clearly stated; decision makers are alert, informed, and willing; not only concerns but factual input from all sides are sought and presented; rules are in place. All that remains is for a decision to be reached by decision makers. Ought to work.
But what if any one of the above items is missing - or not quite whole? Rules not clear, perhaps; concerns and factual input not adequate, maybe? That puts a heavier burden on the decision makers...and what if leadership is not strong there? Not individual leadership, making independent decisions and acting on them - but a cohesive group who can work together under good leadership for the common good, even if rules are not clear?
This poses a different, 2-part dilemma. First is the question of how the decision makers - our selectboard - function in general.
Second is that the issue in question becomes clouded with the frustrations of concerns not being properly addressed - on both sides of the question. Not only that, whatever fallout there is from ineffective action (or even inaction) becomes a force in itself and detracts from the attention the original question deserves.
This 2-part dilemma is happening right now in Paris.
Land use is the hot topic; in particular, public road use for recreational vehicles, ATVs. There has been ample coverage of the details in our local media. TPR wishes to address some perspectives.
The request from the ATV clubs for use of certain roads vs. the concerns voiced by some land owners on those roads has been brought to the selectboard...twice. The selectboard is now 0 for 2 - and a 3rd vote has been requested for the Feb.14th meeting. Looks like a pattern that can be repeated, ad infinitum, depending who has the trickiest plan and the loudest voice....
The fight has become about a single question between what has become two personal points of view. The fact that the whole town will bear the brunt of this kind of decision seems to be lost on everyone - including the board. What comes out of this dialogue, rough and unshaped as it is, could affect homeowners on all streets - and - ATV owners and how they are perceived in the future. It is not a simple issue.
But the issue can be made worse by a lack of proper direction and leadership within our selectboard. A lack in effective leadership in a group can open the door for an individual member's action in other directions, and that will obstruct, and likely prevent, productive, cohesive work.
Consider what our selectboard brings to the table as they seek to help move this town forward:
individuals from the fields of public education, legal practice, law enforcement, tax management, banking. Their varied backgrounds, plus their willingness to put in the hours for what must often seem a thankless job, makes them a potential source for strong positive energy in our town.
However, what if, because of less than strong leadership, one determined individual board member continually seems to step in and wield background experience as a bullying force? Further, what if that individual board member independently moved to use background experience skills to take action in a way that could be interpreted as choosing sides in an argument that affects the whole town?
Who should be the body to curtail behavior of that sort in an individual board member? Clearly the board itself. The issue is leadership.
Paris is a small town. Very little goes unnoticed for very long - even if it cannot always be substantiated specifically enough to be printed in the media. But people see things, they talk to each other, somehow facts emerge, if slowly sometimes.
People in Paris expect their elected officials and hired employees to focus on the things that make this town work.
Right now there is an immediate issue involving how people in this town are going to live together, whether an owner of an ATV, or an owner of property on roads ATVs might travel on. That's the problem to focus on. A solution to this problem will require genuine leadership and setting aside personal agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)