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.
