The Paris Reporter

Roads and steering

2011-08-30T12:53:00.000-07:00

The never-ending struggle of how to maintain - and pay for - proper roads is all too common. The town of Paris is in this struggle to the point of exasperation. Our roads are in desperate shape - ask anybody in town who drives a car or truck. No argument. We need a plan.

But how to go about it? Capital improvement plan, through annual budgeting, using the tax base? Float a bond, paying back borrowed money over time? Only patch the holes and hope for the best? Pass the buck and wait for the next administration to do something?

And which roads to deal with first - or at all? A little effort has surfaced in the form of a study. The current highway foreman, hired this winter 2011, has launched into a computer software program used by Maine DOT that, using certain criteria, will identify roads to be repaired or replaced. But, here in the month of August 2011, no concrete suggestion has yet appeared from the town manager (who is also the road commissioner for the Town of Paris) for the selectboard to discuss and work into a plan to approach the public with..

In fact, there appears to be confusion and frustration in the administrative response to this road concern - and the roads do not improve themselves.

A straightforward approach could be: (1) identify the problem - the job of selectboard and town manager/ highway commissioner along w/ individual voter input; (2) research solutions - part of the job description of the road commissioner; (3) combine the identified problem and concrete research for discussion by the entire selectboard - not just the chairman and road commissioner and maybe one or two other politically expedient individuals ; (4) present a summary of information that includes concrete options to the ultimate decision makers - the taxpayers/voters - for hearings, and then a vote. Then get on with it.

So, no plan, so far, and no discussion happening, so far, on a plan.

That brings us to a second, parallel issue currently operating in Paris, and it lurks under the old, unfriendly nemesis of "who is running this town?"

There appears to be a management issue within the selectboard itself.

The Town of Paris is set up to operate under the Town Meeting form of government. That means the chain of command is : Voters at Town Meeting (decisions) to Selectboard (directions) to Manager (day-to-day work product).

If one of the 3 levels functions inadequately, or even improperly, the need for that particular function does not disappear; e.g., if a manager happens not to perform adequately in a certain situation, the board will end up picking up that work, if there is no insistence on the manager to be accountable.

On the other hand, if a board member stretches his or her power into the manager's territory, not only is the manager held less accountable, the selectboard's ability to function efficiently and effectively is in danger of being compromised.

The selectboard itself must operate as a single body in their deliberations, each member equal to the other, contributing to discussions that lead to workable solutions. Title 30-A M.R.S.A.§2001 gives a description re. municipal officers. The section Distinction BetweenFirst, Second, and Third Municipal Officers states, in part, that "Under state law, there is no difference between the first, second, and third selectperson. .."

We seem to have a chairman who slips into holding court and being judge and jury; who not only physically turns his back on a dissenting board member, but constantly interrupts and dismisses questions, concerns, or, heaven forbid, criticisms from any other board member who may not agree with him.

No matter how well intentioned this chairman may be, or how knowledgeable, the fiscal and policy issues of this town, in general, and our critical road improvement needs, in particular, are items that require equal, open, and unfettered board discussion among all 5 board members - including listening to questions and controversial opinions, and not rearranging or misstating other peoples' ideas and motions - before the information comes before public discussion in preparation for a vote.

"I want," "I do not want," "I would like to see," "I'm trying to get," "I," "I," "I" is not board discussion. It is a one man steering committee. Linked here is a transcript from a 16-plus minutes segment of the 8-22-2011 board meeting that ran 3 hours and 49 minutes. The item was not even officially on the already-too-long agenda. The transcript depicts a situation where the chairman, having acted on his own on a matter not yet discussed by the board, came to the board after the fact, looking for support for his action.

[ editor's note: The partial transcript, quoting mostly only one speaker, is lengthy. But, for those willing to take the time, it is illuminating.]

We currently have a serious situation in our town that affects everyone: our roads are in desperate shape. We need a plan. In order to achieve this - and anything else, for that matter - this town's municipal machine must function properly. That means its manager must produce and be held accountable, and its selectboard , all of it, must lead .

Testing, testing

2011-08-25T15:08:00.000-07:00

“...provide a means for everyone in Paris (ME) to learn about news and issues affecting them.”

This is still TPR’s mission. There are times when there are issues – or segments of them – that don’t make it into the mainstream media. Sometimes those segments add a missing piece to a picture, and that picture may be something that has a measurable effect on the lives of citizens in a community.

So... are there things we need to know about what’s going on in Paris?

Yes, there are.

Are there folks trying to make things better, trying to bring situations up to speed, trying to understand what part they can play to make Paris a better place to live?

Yes, there are.

Any individuals who have a personal agenda to do anything else?

Maybe....

Dollars, taxes, and questions

2011-04-10T19:52:00.000-07:00

Monday April 11, 7 PM Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office. Agenda here.

Most members on our selectboard, in addition to regular selectboard meetings and responsibilities, have been doing double duty by attending the current sessions of budget committee meetings. These sessions are open to the public, though, since it is a committee work time, no public comments are allowed. A reporter or two has dropped by, and a few citizens. The sessions will end with a public hearing April 22 (that is not really a hearing at all, but a preview presentation of the final budget for any interested citizen).

The already flattened budget proposed by Town Manager Tarr, is being ironed further by the budget committee. [editor's note: A budget flattened except for this $180 K truck that he says we must have... Only a few have pursued the question of why now, in this flat lined budget, when even the streetlights may become endangered species...] The committee is hammering his proposed budget into a document for voters in June 2011 - in the hopes that if spending has the same dollar amount as June 2010, our taxes will be kept in check.

[editor's note: Though municipal spending is a large factor, it is actually the mil rate that determines what the final tax dollar amount per citizen. Mil rate is effected by several factors; 2009 calculation page listed here for reference.]

TPR post 4-01-11, along with others, questioned both the million dollar bond and the forming of a local road works operation as a short term financial solution. At the budget committee meeting 4-7, Mgr. Tarr presented a very different approach for the road work issue, offering 3 choices with various financial implications and long term effects. The budget committee chose to do what will be an extra belt tightening action: "Perform ditching, culverts, and any other ancillary work on Oxford Street. Place a thin layer of asphalt over the worst sections of Oxford St. and Paris Hill Road to get by for the next year or two. Money to do this would come from the $88,000 already in the capital budget, or the operating budget, and would negate the need to borrow this year."

But now another critical question arises. What dollar amount from 2010-2011 are we going to flat line our 2011-2012 budget to?

Budget Chair Vic Hodgkins, in a frustrated statement at the end of Thursday's meeting, exclaimed "...the numbers don't seem to work! ". He went on to explain what his goal has been for the committee, that he will "...make sure that whatever this committee puts out for numbers is not one penny more than what we voted on last year. And that figure changed." He explained his understanding of how the figures in the material the committee had been working with had been achieved, and his commitment to keeping the total the same this year. "Now, I look at the figure we get tonight, that's dated 4-6-11, same, same categories, same thing, and all of a sudden the numbers have changed."

A composite budget sheet (from the 6-12-10 town meeting plus the 7-26-2010 special town meeting) show a total municipal expenditure for 2010-2011 of $3,346,186; the expenses totals on the 2012 Budget Committee Department Review show a figure of $3,398,590.

This is a difference of $52,404. The composite sheet lists things in single stand-alone categories; and, where there is more than one item in a category, the single items are listed and a total given in the category as well. For example, line item #1 is a stand-alone category; line 2 & 3 are in another category, and line 4 is the total of 2 & 3. Line #2 is $494,716; line #3 is $325,289. And in this line is the rub, because the total is $820,005, not $767,602, as listed. This is a difference of $52,403. Give or take one dollar for rounding up or down, this error had been corrected in the 4-06 budget total.....

...but somehow, no one had thought to tell the budget committee, several weeks into their work sessions ( and for Chairman Hodgkins, much longer). Management evidently working from one figure, workers from another.

So, what dollar amount are we supposed to flat line to, folks, if we're going to do this thing?

And, who has the bottom line responsibility to make sure the numbers are accurate? During Thursday's budget meeting, after Chairman Hodgkins' statement of frustration, Mgr. Tarr was quick to point out the changes in finance officers and all the other changes and new people that have gone on in this town.

TPR wishes to pose the question: Who has the word Manager beside his name? He's been here through 2 budget cycles now. What has he been doing while all this change has been going on?

The use of our money - a red flag or two

2011-04-01T10:00:00.000-07:00

Thursday's budget work session on Paris' financial structure and its management included some promising question asking and open discussion between committee members and attending selectboard. There has not been such since the budget process began earlier in March. NPCTV and a reporter from The Advertiser Democrat were also in attendance.

It is a good thing to have the press, because there is no other way for voters to learn about what might happen with their money. Even though there is a token hearing sometime in April, it is only a presentation of a done deal; the work has been finished and approved ready for the June town meeting. Input from the voters - read that the bill payers -is not solicited.

It is a good thing, also, because there are huge financial questions on the horizon, and a feeling of confidence does not abound for the budget planning exhibited by Mgr. Phil Tarr so far.

Granted the economy is tight all over, and municipal needs are many. Paris selectboard voted 4-1 to seek a flat lined budget. This in itself approaches the unrealistic, when there are costs that will not go away no matter what belt tightening is implemented...the state of our roads being high on the list.

A solution offered by Mgr. Tarr is to float a million dollar bond, repayable over 5 years, first payment not to be in this year's budget. To use for what? And how to pay it back? And what about the other costs still accruing while paying back the bond? The 12 or 13 people in the discussion, all Paris citizens who would be included in any consequences, were divided on a bond approach. No agreement was reached.

Mgr. Tarr had been promoting the idea of Paris Highway Department doing its own road work to save money as the bond is paid back, insisting that our new highway foreman and our equipment and gravel...at the ready not too far away...would make that a workable solution. Last night there was a little backpedaling, with the highway foreman saying they could probably do some of the smaller jobs. Mgr. Tarr suggested that some roads, Ryerson Hill, for example could just "have it's surface stripped off and stay a gravel road for a while."

The budget committee and selectboard asked for more information on everything. Despite updates and new budget work sheets with new and different figures being cranked out of the front office for each session, members expressed frustration as they tried to keep up and get some sort of handle on what was going on.

NPCTV will broadcast the session Sunday April 3 at 6:30. See for yourself.

There is no opportunity to ask questions at these meetings. Questions - maybe answers, maybe discussion - only at the town meeting just before voting. Perhaps a question in a selectboard meeting during "citizens' comments" would be answered. Both the Advertiser Democrat and the Sun Journal have shown interest in keeping the public informed; that is certainly hopeful.

But it's our money, and we have to inform ourselves. Take advantage of NPCTV Sunday at 6:30 pm. Support and encourage the local press to ask questions and share the answers.

Items of worry, to list a few, about this budget:

(1) Do we want to saddle Paris with the dilemma of borrow now and pay later - adding to everything else we're already paying for later?

(2)What about roads - can they wait to be fixed properly? Can we afford for them to be "fixed" inadequately? Do we dare trust the decisions to be made wisely?

Part of a town budget is the "undesignated fund balance," Paris' policy linked here. It is a means to keep budgeted money until it's needed to pay the bills. Among other stabilizing factors, "It is a surplus of funds which have accrued from unexpected operating budgets and unanticipated excess revenues." [from Paris' policy, above.] There are strict guidelines on how much can be kept before it is turned over to specifically designated town funds.

(3) So, why would the town need to create an additional account, a reserve undesignated fund account - with less restriction ? What Mgr. Tarr called "a stabilization fund"? An account that eventually could approach as much as $500 K, and could be dipped into whenever, without having the item necessarily on the budget?

The chairman of the budget committee asked Mgr. Tarr for leadership - to give them more concrete information at this point, something they can get a hold of to finish putting this budget in place.

And we? We, the rest of the voters, need to educate ourselves and stay extremely vigilant.

This budget is bond dependent

2011-03-27T20:43:00.000-07:00

Paris Selectboard meets 3-28-11, 7pm, town office.

ATV use of public roads, lawsuits, candidates for possible selectboard vacancies, cutting spending to lower our taxes, and more. These items are all on the table. But concerned citizens need to understand that there is a more subtle issue at stake, as well.

On January 24, with a vote of 4-1, The Paris Selectboard voted to "set as a goal to flat line the budget for the whole Town and freeze wages for all Town employees". [ in minutes from Paris selectboard meeting 1-24-11 ]

The Committee preparing the budget for Paris' fiscal year 2011-12 has taken this to heart and have been working to ensure that nothing less than this very thing is presented to voters at the June town meeting. Well, no one likes tax bills that keep coming and coming and never get any smaller, do they? Surely we can do with less all around - cut here and slash there - just STOP SPENDING. If we cut spending today there will be nothing coming due tomorrow, right? The piper never demands payment? The clock can be stopped? Don't we wish.

No matter what we want, to ignore looking at what today's shortcuts will bring tomorrow is reckless. If we're going to agree to cut spending, let's do it with eyes wide open, study options, understand consequences. Tightening one's belt doesn't have to be irresponsible.

There are what looks like red flags in the budget being worked on right now. There seems little opportunity - or worse, no one with whom - to have a discussion or debate on issues that are going to affect this town and all of us in it. A committee member herself even asked, when the issue of finding a less expensive health insurance for employees came up, and she was told they had to move on, "When can we talk about this? I don't want this to fall into a hole."

Let's take the Highway Department budget. Roads are a touchy subject around here especially at the end of winter. It takes a huge chunk of money to build and maintain roads. Some hundreds of thousands. So, if one wanted to cut spending this budget would offer an opportunity or 2.

In this year's proposed highway budget, Mgr. Tarr managed to shave roughly 10 thousand dollars from last year's total....but in a budget that's supposed to be flatlined, under "capital improvements," we find a brand new line item this year for $180,000. A new truck. The funds will come from other shaving in other places...but: to paraphrase what one selectman has adamantly verbalized over and over, why would we need to spend this now when things are so tight? Why could it not go into the hole-in-the-dike plugging needs we seem to be surrounded with?

During the 3-17 budget committee meeting, the answer became more and more apparent when Mgr. Tarr was asked firmly to go back and make his budget even flatter. He replied that he didn't want to touch surplus, and he didn't want to reduce capital balance. But he felt that he could certainly make more cuts. And now, the solution he has been hinting at for quite a while has become the fixing thing. He responded to the Budget Committee Chair, "This budget has become bond dependent."

Many towns have bond money at work in their municipality - it is not uncommon. But it is the beginning of something, not an end-all. And the public works program (read that "road building at the local level") he is proposing to use part of the money for needs to be examined very carefully.

When is all that going to come before the public? For questions and discussion, not just a nice friendly and efficient agenda that includes closing up the world when the chairman is done talking.

TPR will follow up on this topic. There are questions about the $180 K truck; about what was cut out of the Highway Dept.'s budget that added up to the $10,000; about this particular road building plan; and about the bond option. Some of this information cannot wait to be talked about in a hearing where there is only rubber stamping involved, or until the town meeting in June. If great and grand plans are about to be set in motion - on our dime - some of us cry Time! We need to talk.

Continuing saga

2011-03-13T17:03:00.000-07:00

Monday March 14 the Paris selectboard will meet at 7pm in the Fire Station. There will be a little business covered, some bills paid, an appointment or 2. Agenda here.

And then, more of what we've had...and had...and had:

(1) ATV use of public roads on Paris; and, an even older, more worn out topic,(2) who pays for the upkeep of Town Farm Road?

While the facts of the matter on either topic can be - and have been - presented ad nauseum, it is not the facts that TPR wishes to address.

TPR's 2-13 article stated an interest in "how the decision makers - our selectboard - function in general." This perspective of who runs the town and how effective they are in meeting the needs of the majority has been an underlying theme for TPR from the onset. Paris' town government has had almost 2 years of major change upon major change; yet the more things change, the more they sometimes seem no different.

The administration, that is the town manager, and his immediate overseers, the selectboard, our elected officials, still need not only our support, but our scrutiny.

We still have the issue of the rights involved in ATVs using parts of public roads to connect their trails, and who decides that. Dealing with this is difficult enough, without the additional dynamic of having to deal with someone grandstanding and seeking personal aggrandizement.

There is a practicing lawyer on the selectboard who has not denied meeting in his office with parties from one side of this issue. He now needs to be asked, by his fellow board members, to recuse himself from any further discussions, decisions, and actions on this topic as long as he is on the selectboard. Even the "appearance of impropriety" should be avoided. 30-A M.R.S.A.§2605(6)

And then we have the Town Farm Road. It is not TPR's interest to pursue the ins and outs of the case. Suffice it to say the argument between the Town of Paris and the residents in the Town Farm Road Association stems from a disagreement on who should maintain the road into their private development.

Atty. D. Hanley presented the Association's argument to the town 2-2005. The town consulted with the firm of Kurtz and Perry, and in April of that year the town's position was explained in a letter to Atty. Hanley from then Mgr. S. Jackson. On or about 3-30-05, the firm of Kurtz and Perry billed the town $1,125, and again 4-11-05, for $225, for consultation on the Town Farm Road.

Atty. Hanley tried again 4 years later; on the agenda of the 11-09-09 selectboard meeting, he expounded for 30 minutes with the same request. The 2009 board could not change the 2005 decision because after the original decision it had become a court matter.

And now, a lawsuit has been filed by the Town Farm Road Association, according to the 3-14-11 agenda, and there will be still another discussion. Practicing Attorney - Selectman Kurtz should recuse himself from any discussion, decision, or action on this topic, now, and for as long as he is a member of this selectboard.

The MMA Municipal Officer's Manual states in its section on "Conflict of Interest", p. 16:
"All municipal officers have been sworn into public office to serve the interests of the public as a whole and in the municipal official there is a vested public trust."

The appearance of impropriety is at issue in both cases. Our selectboard needs to step up and take action, and not to allow this sort of thing to continue. A selectman who quotes the law at every turn should also be held accountable to it.

This two-part dilemma

2011-02-27T16:44:00.000-08:00

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.

A note

2011-02-13T14:03:00.000-08:00

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.

A question of leadership

2011-02-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

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?

Who's in charge?

2011-02-13T13:40:00.000-08:00

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?

The effect of leadership

2011-02-13T13:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Involvement thereon

2011-01-04T19:00:00.000-08:00

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....

On Monday Jan. 3...

2011-01-03T21:27:00.000-08:00

...5 Paris Selectboard members; 1 town clerk; 2 reporters; 1 cameraman; 5 public at large; all met together in the town office for the first meeting of the year.

No town manager.

Chairman Ray Glover: " ...our manager is not present tonight; he had a doctor's appointment, with a specialist out of town, and if the board agrees...to...accept his absence..." Medical excuse was voted on and accepted by the board.

It is a fortunate patient who finds individual medical expertise at work in the pm.

Coincidence that this meeting was to replace the meeting of Dec. 27 that got snowed out - the meeting that was cancelled 24 hours in advance (Sunday 12-26). Probably would have had awkward discussions at that meeting, anyway...harsh words and concerns about a manager's choice for agenda items and all...

A citizen asked about the replacement for Highway Foreman Frank Danforth. Selectman West said he was with Mgr. Tarr and (TPR understands) former Finance Officer Sharon Gendreau when 6 applicants were interviewed, and narrowed down to 1 - who West thought Mgr. Tarr anticipated hiring. There followed a discussion of how board approval fits in: a rubber stamping after the fact? or a possibility of refusal to approve if the candidate is unacceptable?

As for replacing Finance Officer Gendreau, a former finance officer, Marjorie Risica, will serve temporarily. Mgr. Tarr will seek a full time employee.

A citizen expressed concern about oversight, and asked about how the board would conduct careful supervision throughout the transition process - including monitoring the various accounts. The citizen's concern was as much about the expertise of the current chief financial officer (Mgr. Tarr) as that of a temporary - and eventually a new permanent finance officer.

Former Financial Officer Gendreau will be a hard act to follow. She has provided a stabilizing hand following the loss of former Manager S. Jackson.

Another citizen added her concern about Mgr. Tarr's judgment in financial matters, citing a recent article in Waterville's Morning Sentinel. The 12-29-11 article refers to " 'Accounting restructuring'," specifically, a matter of routing state funds received into a general fund to spend, as opposed to placing them in a reserve fund to use later as they were intended. This happened in Skowhegan, the town where Phil Tarr was manager 2005 to June 2008. [editor's note: During the meeting Monday there was speculation about how many other managers could have come between the issue reported and the current manager in Skowhegan. The manager quoted in the article appears to be the manager who directly followed Tarr. It was only 15 months after leaving that town when Tarr applied to Paris for his current position.]

The incident is not a criminal matter - but it does not inspire confidence. In Paris these last months there has been some sloppiness that has obscured rather than clarified, some ambiguity when transparency would have been more professional. Think golf cart and police car purchases, for example.

This sloppiness and ambiguity did not originate from Finance Officer - Deputy Treasurer Gendreau's office.

Not confidence inspiring. On top of not much confidence there in the first place... The citizens speaking wanted the selectboard to understand that.

And then the topic swerved, to NPSW - the organization designed to coordinate and support the labor that facilitates the way both of our towns handle solid waste. But the topic's focus wasn't as much about the workers, as it was the NPSW board; and Town Manager Tarr's involvement thereon. [editor's note: clarification - the correct title for head of that corporation would be "president", not chairman, as TPR stated in the last posting. It would be "President" Tarr who wears that second hat.]

Starting the new year

2011-01-02T19:51:00.000-08:00

Paris Selectboard meets Monday Jan. 3, 7PM, town office. Agenda here. Although brand new creative additions often times appear on the agenda by the time meeting time rolls around....

According to The Sun Journal 12-28-10, this particular meeting, rescheduled because of bad weather on 12-27-10, "...had been planned to be short, with one article on communication between selectmen and town employees."

Item #12 on the agenda for the postponed 12-27 meeting refers to a "discussion of information sources for board members".

Those sitting in the audience at the 12-13 meeting will remember some heated words between Mgr. Tarr and one specific selectman. It was not totally clear what the underlying issue was - but there was no question that there was a clash of wills. Perhaps it was a question of who's in charge here?

There are folks - some selectboard members, some just plain old citizens - who continue to ask questions; because even if things look pleasant and accommodating and all okey-dokey, a not-so-clear issue or situation can be cleared up with a few well-placed questions and some straight answers.

And someone intent on keeping the voting public informed, with nothing to hide, would have no problem with that. Right?

Take the following questions, for example....

Consider the interlocal agreement between Norway and Paris to deal with solid waste (NPSW) and the structured board with combined members from both towns.

*Why are there 2 town managers of participating towns sitting on that board with voting privileges? One of whom not only votes, but is also chairman? Both are responsible for formulating budgets for their respective towns, and those town budgets include amounts formulated by NPSW in its budget.

There is no question that some town managers have skills to share; but, after the initial crisis intervention situation NPSW faced early on, this continuing guidance should be - and should have been - done on an informal, advisory basis.

There is cause to look further into the term "incompatibility of office," as discussed in the Municipal Officer's Manual published by MMA, chapter 2, "Board of Municipal Officers" under the topic of "Conflict of Interest." (See TPR post 12- 05-10 Continuing to track.)

*How is this ok?

Continuing on the theme of a town manager wearing 2 hats...at the 12-13 meeting, Selectboard member Smart brought to the board's attention the cover page from an NPSW request inviting proposals for firms or individuals to apply for the job of conducting a comprehensive analysis of solid waste and recycling operations within or near Oxford County. [editor's note: check the address and title in the middle of the page to see under whose auspices this document appears to be sent out.] It is not the intent of TPR to criticize this project. Consider, however, that at the top level of the joint steering committee for this project sits Paris Town Mgr. Tarr, Chairman of NPSW.

OK. Two jobs - maybe not too hard? But who is this job for? Sel. Smart asked if there wasn't an office at NPSW where Tarr could receive mail and from which he could administrate; and he responded that there was an office at Brown Street, but no one always there to answer the phone or give out information.

*So Paris town office staff should do it?

Another selectman responded that he (Mgr. Tarr) was working for "us," that we asked him to do this. So, is the assumption...

*...it's also ok for Paris staff to do work for NPSW?

Wait - did we ask him to do this - all this? Thought that was for the crisis intervention period early on.... Thought we hired Phil Tarr, at a fine and dandy salary, plus benefits, to manage the town of Paris.

And while we're at, while we're asking questions, lets see how the division of that administrative time is working out....

*... any giving over of Paris duties to office staff so NPSW business gets handled...?

*What kind of oversight is happening at the top level in Paris' municipal machine?

*Whose interest is being served? There need to be some more questions....

Following concerns and interests

2010-12-16T16:08:00.000-08:00

Clarification: Monday 12-12-10, TPR announced "We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau." TPR needs to be clear that Ms. Gendreau is not the treasurer; she is the deputy treasurer. Her legal title is Finance Clerk, Deputy Treasurer. [Annual Town Report 2008-2009, Paris Maine].

The legal title of Treasurer, Town of Paris, goes to Town Manager Tarr.

Nevertheless, Ms. Gendreau has resigned, and that is an item that Paris citizens overlook at their peril. She is - and was - a dedicated, responsible, competent professional, and she kept us stable (as stated last posting); and now we have lost her. Why would that be? And will we be losing others? Has anyone looked? The staff behind the hired manager is only a work force, only minions...only what keeps this town running.

There are those who ask questions, who look deeper; and there are those who don't - and will not.

Are things better in Paris now than a year ago? Who would be in a position to know? Have you been in the town office to look? Have you asked questions? Would you know if you heard the truth? or not?

There will be an interim finance officer coming in - TPR reported that Mgr. Tarr would act as interim; that is not strictly accurate, as the transcript below shows. [editor's note: There is a bad taste in Paris for the word "interim", i.e., the interim town manager after the vendetta firing of Town Manager Jackson.]

And then there is to be advertising for the permanent finance officer position. The interim officer who will somehow keep this town running... by handling just about everything... will fade into the sunset, and a new, handpicked individual will arrive on the scene.

Wait...handpicked by who...er whom??

Now why should TPR be so concerned about all of this? After all, the Paris Selectboard is on top of all of this. Hmmmm.... Refer to the statements above about asking questions.

Transcript, from beginning of Citizen Comments, Paris Selectboard meeting 12-13-10:

Chairman Glover: "Moving on to Citizen's Comments - Yes?

Citizen: "This is for Mgr. Tarr. I'm concerned about the money being managed in our town. What steps are you taking to replace Sharon Gendreau's position?"

Mgr. Tarr: "...Probably...Sharon will be replaced on an interim basis..."

Citizen: "By...?"

Mgr. Tarr: "I'm not sure. And...I just learned about this yesterday, so...I'm sorry - Friday.[editor's note: TPR wonders about this date....] So,...and then because of the highly sensitive nature of dealing with public finance, it's...not only will we be replacing, replacing her on a temporary basis, it takes quite a bit of time and work to find the right person on a permanent basis. So, it would be a two-step process - someone will be here before Sharon leaves, and...she will be available on an on-call basis for advice and so forth."

Citizen: "Who has oversight over this interim process?"

Mgr. Tarr: "I do."

Citizen: "And then, that's...then you will be answerable to the board on that, right? "

Mgr. Tarr: "Yes."

Citizen: (to the board) "And will there be oversight from the board, then? Yes?...I'm simply asking..."

Chair. G.: "What?"

Citizen: "Oversight, from the board, on this?"

More than one board member: "Yes."

There followed a bit of chatting among some board members about an individual who might be interested in an interim position...in this situation...losing the finance officer...and all...

Is anyone paying attention?

Concerns and Interests

2010-12-13T22:54:00.000-08:00

Small group tonight on this December 13th. 5 sturdy selectboard members; 1 town manager; 1 faithful cameraman; 1 diligent reporter, 5 concerned citizens.

Questions got asked; warrants paid; new procedures were needed and tried; there was advocating and critiquing and explaining and .... All the things that should be in the public viewing of our municipal machine's functioning.

But, just as in the functioning of a car engine there are wrenches and oil filters and nuts and bolts, etc., critical to the functioning of that engine but not necessarily in the spotlight as separate items, so, too, there are things in the process of the municipal machine that are not right out in front - pieces that make the things in front go, but aren't all lined up for inspection right that minute. Pieces that can be over-looked if one doesn't look closer.

There are outward signs that can indicate areas that may be of real concern behind the scenes.

Whose interest is being served? A relevant question, for starters....

Consider the following:

The structure of our town, any municipality, is defined by its bylaws, excerpts of Paris' here. Generally speaking, the rules are set up to establish rules of conduct and procedures to make the town work. Legislative body elects Board who hires Manager who appoints Department Heads w/ board approval.

Meetings, even how the agendas are to be prepared are set out. Bylaws...Paris, Section 4 - Meetings: ...."Any Selectman or other citizen may request an item for inclusion in the agenda for a regular meeting by notifying the Town Manager by noon on the Thursday before the scheduled meeting. An agenda for each meeting shall be prepared by the Town Manager."

Tonight Selectman Kurtz faced Manager Tarr with refusing to put his requested item on the agenda; Manager Tarr responded that he didn't refuse, he wanted the item worded differently; Selectman Kurtz maintained it was his right to have the item worded as he asked; the item, however, did not appear on the agenda. [editor's note: the item, it appears, was to have an executive session to discuss the manager's duties, evidently in the context of how information is to be presented to the board.]

The discussion continued, and the items ended up being discussed anyway -in public; it did not to appear to be any information that had not been discussed before in public. In fact Mgr. Tarr said "we" had dealt with the information before....

It was not clear what his refusal to place the item on the agenda was actually intended to accomplish - he said he felt his rights were being violated. He said he told "Chairman Ray" that he was not going to put it on the agenda.

Was this a discussion on even ground? Or, was someone not doing what he was supposed to do?Was someone using Chairman Ray as the fall guy for not following procedure? (Chairman Ray did not take any part in the discussion.)

Selectboard member Smart pointed out that 3 board members on the previous board, no longer on the board, made a very bad habit of changing rules to suit their own purpose; and that Mgr. Tarr's choice to just decide to leave the item off the agenda caused her serious concern.

TPR, too.

The next critically serious concern:
We have lost the Treasurer for the Town of Paris, Sharon Gendreau. Manager Tarr said that she resigned for personal reasons.

This is unfortunate for Paris for so many reasons - not the least of them her level of understanding of what goes on in the financial operation of our town. The multiple aspects of the position are staggering.

A citizen asked Mgr. Tarr what steps were being taken to fill her position? Mgr. Tarr said they would advertise. To the question of who would handle the interim position before permanent hiring? "Me," he answered.

Are there selectboard members prepared to give the right kind of oversight for this kind of situation?

In past postings TPR has referred to Manager Tarr's wearing of more than one hat [Dec.5 Continuing to track]; in this two hat business, extra work has to get sloughed off somewhere....who picks up the slack?

Who is asking questions about how things are managed in our town office? Our whole community is routed through there; who is making sure things are going on in the best way possible? Is anyone paying attention?

Ms. Gendreau is a dedicated, responsible, competent professional. She goes the extra mile and does that one extra thing. She has played a major role in keeping us stable in this transition between awful and maybe. Now here we are...just one more thing... in an already heavily loaded work place.

Caution....

On Monday...

2010-12-12T15:23:00.000-08:00

...Paris selectboard will meet at 7pm 12-13-10, at the town office. Agenda posted here. Readers will note that the now infamous golf cart discussion will be included, again, #11. Doesn't seem to be listed under unfinished business (original topic came up at the two previous meetings)... perhaps there is to be a new approach to this brought-up-before... tabled... unfinished-because-it-needed-more-information old business? Thus it becomes new business...?

And item #6b. employee resignation. Mmm...yes...

However, in the interest of continuing to take stock, to see what is working in Paris at this moment and what is not...back to #11. Not to beat a dead horse...but there is a point of interest to focusing a bit more on what might be behind the board's concern in this issue. TPR does not believe that the selectboard is refusing to support preventive measures that will make our population safer. The target(s) of concern in the agenda item appear to have become the individuals themselves, the ones bringing up the item; and the process, in fact perhaps even the thinking behind the process, that the individuals have now used more than once in their approach to the selectboard. [editor's note: see Backtracking, TPR 11-29-10]

The Advertiser Democrat, 12-09-10, p.4A, published well-put-together coverage of the 12-06-10 selectboard meeting's discussion of the issue. See Matt Hongoltz-Hetling's "Open Ledgers Insure Transparency in Paris."

Note the last 2 sections, excerpts printed here from Manager Tarr's comments:
"The current board wants more involvement in financial matters...It appears that they will reserve for themselves the right to approve all expenditures..."

"This is fine, as long as it is clearly articulated, which the emerging purchasing policy will do...However, it is still a couple of months away from a final version."

TPR poses the following questions concerning management skills, and who should be checking on these skills, if we are paying with taxpayer money for someone to use such:

*Last sentence in Manager Tarr's comments "...still a couple of months away..." : So, for the next couple of months management cannot use common sense, cannot possibly know what to do - or... could it be...can still use that excuse to do whatever he feels like until told otherwise on paper...?

*"More involvement in financial matters..." Well how dare they? How dare the selectboard look over the shoulder of an employee in whom it is beginning to look as if they do not have total confidence? How dare they consider that taxpayers might be getting concerned?

*And consider this:
Is the manager just now getting the message that the selectboard wants to be in the loop? Where has he been? How hard is that? Do we need to list for him all the items the board has brought to his attention - that the rest of us already remember? Current Purchasing Policy or not.

*Consider the difficulty if Paris has a manager who cannot think outside the printed page... or uses that for an excuse.

Continuing to track

2010-12-05T21:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Backtracking

2010-11-29T20:38:00.000-08:00

Spending...who's in charge of it in our town.... a place where the buck stops.... Now, to find just that right spot...

Back in April 2010: a fairly new town manager - new to Paris, anyway; and a need for a replacement police cruiser. A 2003 Chevy Impala appears on the horizon through the Surplus Property Program from the State of Maine. According to the purchase order from the town of Paris,4-01-10, as well as the invoice from the State of Maine's Bureau of General Services, 4-06-10, Paris then owed the State of Maine $3,950.

According to the Purchasing Policy in effect for Paris at that time, "The Municipal Officers prior to execution shall approve any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200." [and] "Any purchase or formal contract greater that $3200 must be competitively bid."

The $3950 appeared on warrant #86, which was on the agenda to be approved at the Paris selectboard meeting 5-10-10.

However, consider the following timeline:
4-1-10 purchase order from Town of Paris, signed by Police Chief Verrier;
4-1-10 receipt signed by Chief Verrier for a car purchased from Maine's Surplus Property Program; [note a stamped entry top right corner]
4-6-10 invoice from Bureau of General Services;
4-28-10 check cut by Paris to Treasurer, State of Maine for $3,950;
5-10-10 payment for purchased item authorized.

What's out of sequence here?

And, notice any competive bids?

No one stole a car at gun point, and no doubt the Paris police department needed the car. But. WHO is supposed to be calling the shots here? Perhaps this was a misunderstanding? New manager in town and all...? Perhaps the town manager told the police chief to handle it the way he did...perhaps vice versa... who knows? But the selectboard learned about it after the fact. What...what was everybody doing when they were supposed to be watching out for things? Was anyone at all minding the store?

And here we are 7 months later, the same players, all conducting business in the same old way. Whose interest is being served?

Well placed questions

2010-11-29T17:24:00.000-08:00

How do we take stock, here in the town of Paris? What do we look at, what kinds of things do we measure, to see if things are better now in Paris?

Is better only the absence of crisis? The opposite of chaos in the streets? No yelling and screaming at public meetings? Are there specific areas where we can - and should - focus and gather information more objectively?

Let's focus on how our taxpayer money is spent, the actual, physical doing of it. We are clear on whose money it is...; but the actual process of how it gets spent - and who is responsible for the outcome. This would, of course, include the wider view of the massive planning that makes up the budget process for the town, and culminates in a final product brought to the voters at town meeting in June.

But the playing out of that budget happens in the actual day-to-day activities of the town's operation. The town's treasurer signs checks and keeps a meticulous accounting - all on public record - of the process after it reaches her.

But what kinds of checks and balances are in place to insure that the process - before it reaches her - is structured to safeguard our hard earned dollars ?

A topic of high interest during the last 2 selectboard meetings has been trying to understand the process used to spend certain grant money awarded to our Paris police department. Not only the process, but who in that process is accountable? Even if the issue is not legally questionable, it is troublesome not to know specifically how our money is being handled.

In August 2010, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant offered several towns in this area the opportunity to apply, as a group, for a grant from the Maine Department of Public Safety, for money to mount a project in their various communities. Utilizing the resources in his department, Paris Police Chief David Verrier submitted a grant for Paris. His proposal outlined a plan to offer police support of surveillance and assistance for the new walking trail being built by several community organizations, as well as a driver educational tool for Oxford Hills High School students.

The particular item to be purchased with grant money was a golf cart. The need is real, the proposal, as presented on 11-08 seemed to make sense; and this appears, on the face of it, to be a worthwhile project. Partial transcript of Paris selectboard meeting 11-08-10 linked here.

However, it was evidently just not that simple. By the 11-22 selectboard meeting, a wrinkle had appeared: the actual item on the warrant showed that the golf cart was more expensive than the selectboard had thought.

The grant amount awarded was $1608, and that was the amount discussed on 11-08. But the total warrant amount as listed 11-22 was $1899. Partial transcript Paris selectboard meeting 11-22-10 linked here. Did someone not ask the right question? Did someone not tell the whole story? Did someone not....

The purchase order was signed only by the police chief. And the town manager (chief financial officer, one understands...) says he didn't know a purchase order had happened. But that he and the chief did talk, on more than one occasion. On this topic. "I knew he was doing this." [Mgr. Tarr, 11-22-08.] One cannot know what they did talk about....

The bill of sale itself was initialed by the town manager.

A harangue from three select board members ensued - rightly so - and directed mostly at Chief Verrier, for leaving them out of the loop, or perhaps misleading them.

Selectman Kurtz, however, had a few will placed questions for Mgr. Tarr, on the line of who's in charge here.... and TPR has to agree the town manager did not select best management practice in this operation . Mgr. Tarr seemed full of ways to avoid responsibility for a wrongful process... and for not really knowing what was going on.

In fact he put a good bit of emphasis on the fact that there were no directions available- in a proper purchasing policy, for example - to make clear what his responsibility was. [editor's note: There is indeed a purchasing policy in place, approved in 2006; but even if the town manager did not consult it, or felt it was not explicit it enough, there will never be any policy written that substitutes for common sense.] One supposes, by his comments, then, that probably it was the police chief who didn't do the right thing...? Maybe. Could be. Who knows?

Perhaps this was just a miscommunication all around...perhaps it was just this one time....

Taking stock

2010-11-28T14:29:00.000-08:00

Looking at our municipal machine and its administrative function, here in the town of Paris, just where are we at the end of this November 2010?

A brief tally:

*One year and five-plus months since a newly elected selectboard came on the scene (6-22-09) with an agenda to fashion the town in a new order;

*One year and five months since an interim town manager was hired to assist them (7-01-09);

*One year since more than 1500 Paris voters, in a general election (11-03-09), approved an ordinance for a recall election in the town of Paris;

*Eleven months since a full time town manager was hired (01-04-10). [editor's note: 2 members of the board that hired him still serve on the selectboard today, 11-28-10] ;

*Eleven months since 487 determined Paris voters gathered together, on a bitter cold night, for a special town meeting (01-08-10), and made it crystal clear that they called the shots, not a small group of individuals with a personal agenda;

*Ten months since two special recall elections (2-02-10 and 2-05-10) that saw two of the five selectmen on that board voted out of office by sizeable margins because they had lost the confidence of the voters;

*Nine months since a special election (3-16-10) replaced the two recalled selectmen;

*Five months since the regular election at the annual Paris town meeting (6-08-10) produced an additional individual to fill out the official 5 member selectboard.

A question - perhaps a statement, really - frequently heard here and there, and round about, both in the town of Paris, and beyond:

"Haven't heard anything; haven't seen anything in the papers. Guess things are better in Paris now. Right?"

Are things better?

Public road use and other topics

2010-10-24T15:05:00.000-07:00

Monday 10-25-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at 7 PM in the town office. Public is welcome. Agenda here.

*The long awaited public discussion by the selectboard re. ATV use of certain public roads as connectors for some of their trails has been under small group discussion and negotiation. The expectation for this regularly scheduled meeting is to include an open discussion between board members, and to conclude with a final decision on the issue.

The original suggestion by some on the board was to wait and make a final decision at their regular December 13 meeting; but there were land owners who felt that the matter was more urgent, and needed to be dealt with before the ATV season was effectively over in December anyway.

*The Northern Border Grant, authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, addresses job creation, infrastructure improvements, and efforts to strengthen rural economy. It is designed to bring regional support to economically distressed areas; 12 of the 16 counties in Maine are eligible, including Oxford.

The topic is on the agenda to be presented by Linda Walbridge from Community Concepts. For more information, see press releases from Senator Olympia Snowe, and Maine Dept. of Economic Development.

*[editor's note on Town Manager's report, which, as is usually the case until the actual day of a meeting, has not yet been specified:

While the public does appreciate being reminded of upcoming events, deadlines, a new hiring, new rules and laws to consider, perhaps - the public does not wish, every meeting, a 20-30 minute session of accomplishments, new ideas and possibilities, or items that more than once have lead to board discussion and the need for action. If the manager has such items to present, they belong on the regular agenda.]

*Selectmen concerns. Paris citizens value their elected officials' ideas and perspectives. There must indeed be a venue for those concerns/thoughts/questions to be brought into the public view. It is realistic to have a catch-all sort of category in an agenda for last minute items - though it might more realistically be called "other."

Consider, however:
Items of importance, to the speaker, similar to Citizen Comments - though under the title of "Selectman Concerns" - have, more than once, been brought up under this umbrella, at the very end of the agenda, 2 1/2 or 3 hours in - and more - for a cable TV viewer, or after most of a live audience - often including the press - has gone home....

If an issue is important enough to be brought up at all, why is it not on the agenda proper? Or, at the very least, why is "selectmen concerns" not earlier in the agenda? When it would receive more attention? Surely this is not to sneak things in when no one notices? Nor could it be that our elected officials - also citizens - do not deserve prime time billing?

The devil is in the details.... How things are presented, how they are worded, how they are disclosed...all make a difference in how they are received/perceived by the public, and how they will be responded to. How things are presented affects the interaction between citizens, including elected officials, which, in itself, becomes part of the life force in any town.

What about our funds?

2010-10-20T15:07:00.000-07:00

Late in the evening of Paris selectboard's regular meeting, 10-12 -10, Selectman Kurtz brought up a concern: "I have a very serious concern - what is for me a very serious concern. There is a designated and undesignated fund balance policy for the town of Paris Maine, policy # 5-2007, that was approved by Sharon Jackson on November 15, 2007, and was approved by the municipal officers November 15 2007..." [editor's note: Selectman Kurtz then goes on to name the officers, and to summarize, quite accurately, the policy, posted here .]

Briefly, the policy was established to plan for redirecting accumulated, unused money, not otherwise earmarked, "to maintain an undesignated fund balance no less than 12% and no more than 15% of the previous year's operating expenditures less debt service." This money would be available for the town to use, if needed, in certain circumstances; or, it could be redirected into reserve accounts for specific purposes. The bar was set high (the 12% -15% figures); the goal, when the policy was put in place, was to achieve that "bar" (building up a big enough fund balance). Reaching that goal certainly did not happen the next day, but it was reached.

Selectman Kurtz went on to say "It is my understanding that by spending the $50,000 out of the reserves this summer for the firemen's per diem operating expenses, this town violated the standing fund balance policy."

As summarized in the Advertiser Democrat 10-14-10, the time of the night at the meeting was late; and, since no one on the board had previously seen any of the material about the fund balance question, or was even aware that this concern would be brought up at this meeting, chairman Glover recommended that the topic be visited again when there had been time to review the information and give it due consideration.

It seems a fair question to ask, "Are we, as a town, spending responsibly?"

It is a far more pointed question to ask "Is our financial management in responsible hands?"

The waters become murky, here. In a municipal engine, there are many places money can be legitimately stored, and management is in a position to recommend and/or direct those decisions.

(a) money can be left over from state or federal funds, and invested in an independent account to accrue interest until needed for appropriate use, like the FEMA funds received for storm destroyed roads in 2008;

(b) the George Morton Trust, for example, has very specific terms on how money can be used by the town of Paris;

(c) the town's checking account, where tax money coming in, and all manner of other things, are kept until needed to pay bills.

It is not uncomplicated.

Any individual can gather information on what is supposed to happen; but it is not so easy to figure out what should have happened and didn't, or who was responsible for the widget that should have gone into a certain space but went missing.... The process is not a straight line, but a series of lines. And they must lie in sync.

If the gauntlet was thrown down to prove that a violation was made of Paris policy #5-2007, and one individual hopes to be the sole conqueror in that quest, this would be counterproductive. This town is set up to be run by a team. It takes more than one to make a team....

If, however, there is going to be a team effort, and perhaps a team investigation [editor's note: read that all selectmen knowing - up front - what's going on, everyone being privy to all dialogue between concerned parties, and the public being fully informed] into how our financial machine operates, and who is responsible for what duties under what circumstances, then, and only then, would there be merit for looking into what's going on in regards to the designated and undesignated fund balance in the town of Paris.

To fill you in

2010-10-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

*There is no regularly scheduled Paris Selectboard meeting this week.

The board will meet in executive session - not open to the public except for the formal opening of the session - on Wednesday the 20th to plan and discuss the upcoming...in a while...later on...down the road....6 month evaluation of the town manager that was urgent in August but has become less urgent, evidently - since November begins month 11 of his employment. [editor's note: see the excerpt of a transcription of the 10-11-10 meeting in previous posting.]

*Currently Norway-Paris Cable TV is renegotiating their contract with Time Warner Cable, not uncommon in the tidying up and straightening around of affairs in the cable TV world from time to time.

Serving on the NPCTV committee, along with Norway reps, 3 individuals represent Paris. One of these individuals will be going around to check how many cable connections Time Warner is currently providing. This individual is currently being ferried around by Paris Highway Department's transport.

This is best use of Paris funds? Yes? Perhaps the NPCTV committee individual could shovel a bit of gravel in between times....

*Last Tuesday's combined meeting with Paris planning board and selectboard included a discussion about the possibility of a study group to look at the feasibility of zoning (aka "land management") for the town of Paris - a concept Norway and Oxford already have in place. Both local newspapers have given coverage.

Two or 3 individuals of the combined boards had reservations about the potential success of such an exploratory study. The combined boards were, in the end, convinced to take a step back before actually agreeing to convene a study group to look into things. They chose to take a straw vote to decide whether to even consider convening a study group.

The final decision was to include information in a flyer from the comprehensive plan - that the voters have already voted on and agreed with - and a box for yes or no, and have a straw vote for a study group at the November 2 polls.

If not too many "no's", then a study group could be arranged. Then research would happen; information would be gathered to educate folks; and perhaps Paris voters could make a real decision on whatever the question actually becomes - instead of a straw vote.

There is, however, one small... inconvenience.... The straw vote flyers just came back from the printers, and none of the 174 folks who have voted by absentee ballot so far have had a chance to weigh in - if they would have chosen to on this optional straw vote in the first place.

Because it is not wise for a town to disenfranchise any voter, the decision has been made to mail out 174 flyers, and include a self addressed stamped envelope in case the individuals want to weigh in on the straw vote.

So: 174 x $.88 (2 stamps per) = $153.12; plus 174 envelopes and address labels. Plus the extra time from office staff on top of what they already do; one too many more pieces of busy work because of inadequate planning. No big deal? Why worry? When should we worry? And the omnipotent being who broadcasts that signal would be...?

* The Designated and Undesignated Fund Balance Policy, Town of Paris, Maine Policy Number 5-2007, will become an item of discussion by Paris Selectboard in the near future. TPR will give the topic some focus in an upcoming posting.

*Important Public Forum:
Wednesday October 20 , 7-9 PM at the OHCHS auditorium, The Advertiser Democrat will sponsor a formal public debate on question #1 on the Nov. 2 ballot: "Do you want to allow table games and slot machines at a single site in Oxford County, subject to local approval, with part of the profits going to specific state, local, and tribal programs?"

The debate looks to be professionally set up, competently staffed, and fairly run. Come and bring a friend. This is a high impact issue for our locality, never mind the whole state. The Advertiser deserves high marks for backing it.

Coming things

2010-10-11T15:34:00.000-07:00

Tuesday October 12, 7PM town office - joint Paris Planning Board and Selectboard meeting. Open to the public. There has been a citizen request to look at the matter of zoning for the town of Paris. The smaller town of Oxford has had zoning in place for a period of time, as do a number of other Maine towns.

If the consideration of a theoretical resort casino is to be put before the voters, certainly a practical nuts and bolts matter like zoning can be discussed, researched, and eventually put before the voters, as well.

Wednesday October 13, 7pm. Location? Call town office to see if public is welcome. Invested parties meet, once again, to work to a common understanding on use of public roadways by ATVs, all information gathered to be fed into consideration during the discussion by Paris selectboard 10-25-10 .

Wednesday October 20, executive session for Paris Selectboard. Not open to the public except for the 2 minutes of formal opening protocol. The meeting will be used to plan - again, more, for the eventual 6 month evaluation meeting (now in month 9) for the town manager. See transcript excerpt of 9-27 discussion below.

Monday October 25, 7pm, location uncertain - regular Paris Selectboard meeting. Public welcome. Includes discussion of ATV use of public roadways, hopefully using input from recent meetings with invested parties.

Wednesday November 17, location unknown, and most certainly not open to the public; the delivering of the actual evaluation to the town manager... month 10 and then some.

This 6 month evaluation that, back in August, seemed of serious import and necessary, despite such action for Paris town managers having little precedent.... and at least one selectman being in a very critical posture....

The following section of transcript is from the 9-27-10 selectboard meeting. [editor's note: the topic in the following transcript came under "selectmen concerns" about 9 pm in the meeting, item #17. Evidently the import of comments made at this point in the meeting are inversely proportional to the import of their value to the town's operating concerns.... Otherwise, comments of such import would... surely...be put on the agenda outright, along with ground water analysis and liquor licenses and warrant items.]

Selectman Kurtz: "Are we going to put this off until January? Make it a January review?"

Manager Tarr: "We're nearing a point there this makes sense, but I wouldn't stop at this point, because we're all learning some things about the process...either call this the annual...it may take 2 meetings before, you know, I do my own self assessment, and then my goals and objectives [editor's note: assigned several weeks ago...]as I see them; and then another meeting for you people to say this is what you agree with and what you don't agree with, or if...what you would like."

I think that type of process meritorious. It takes time, however...and...you know.... Anniversary date is January 4. So, if you did this, and made a decision in November, or early December, call it the 'Annual'."

Selectman Herrick: "Sure."

Sel. Kurtz: "With this crowd (chuckle, chuckle)...it does take time."

Manager T: "Well it certainly is different...but you people have gone through a huge transition this year, and you're working well as a group.... Yeah, it does take time."

WAIT A MINUTE: who is running this town? This new...town manager is the one to tell the selectboard they are doing a good job? To tell them he will "do... [his] goals and objectives" - for our future? As opposed to him fitting his goals and objectives into ways of meeting the needs of the town as set forth by the selectmen?

Of course a town manager hired into such a situation would want a mid-term evaluation - or any sort of evaluation - to be held later rather than sooner. Or not at all, if possible. Or, at the very least, on his terms.

Who should be leading whom?

And for Wednesday...

2010-09-28T17:50:00.000-07:00

...9-29-10, at 6:30 PM at the Paris fire station, the combined selectboards of Norway and Paris, as well as the Norway-Paris Solid Waste board, will meet to discuss the merits of single stream recycling as a form of waste management. Public is invited.

Paris town manager P. Tarr, also currently the chairman of the NPSW board, was wondering at the Paris selectboard meeting Monday, what the public would have to say.

Unfortunately, most folks might know something about solid waste management in general, but certainly far less about single stream recycling in particular.

Generally speaking, what we think of as garbage items would still have to be dealt with in their own way; but recyclable items would have a new way of being handled.

A general understanding of single stream might be, at a rudimentary level of explanation, that all recyclable items would be received into one huge receptacle, then shipped off to a huge sorting plant, sorted by machine, and then disposed of from there; vs. sorting glass from metals from paper, etc, as many of us do individually now, and then disposing of the results in various ways.

Some starter questions might be:

*If there is money to be made from this kind of solid waste management operation, where would it go?

*If, at the magical sorting center, things don't happen to get all sorted properly (there is mention of some things "falling through the cracks") what are the ecological ramifications, historically, with this kind of set up?

*What will happen to the set up we already have, the various components, the workers, the sites, etc?

*Is the Norway-Paris community doing such a poor job of sorting our solid waste that there is need to just put everything in a big bin and ship it off somewhere else to be sorted?

And, lest anyone think this is not about money, because a certain individual said plainly at a combined waste management meeting in spring 2010 that "There's a lot of money to be made in waste management...." let's be certain to double check:

*Who stands to profit?

*Is it only about money?

None of these questions is intended to infer that anything underhanded is afoot. But there is a huge empty space where general public information needs to be happening on this topic; citizens should be very concerned that no commitment is made anywhere until we are fully educated and are in a position to make an informed vote.

Items covered

2010-09-27T20:07:00.000-07:00

Smaller group tonight. Nasty weather. 6 - 8 concerned citizens; five stalwart selectpersons; one town manager; one hard working town clerk; two newspaper reporters...

...and the welcome presence of NPCTV. Again, and still. For double checking facts or discussions, there is nothing like seeing and hearing things - again. In addition, for the not-faint-of-heart, any citizen at large who cannot easily get out to a meeting, but cares about how our town is being run, can see things in real time. Such citizens make phone calls, often use email, and more than one might think, have considerable networks. Good to remember...

The Sun Journal and the Advertiser Democrat will no doubt give more than adequate coverage to the actual business conducted in tonight's board meeting. TPR offers what the late radio commentator Paul Harvey used to call "the rest of the story."

As noted in the previous posting, certain timely items were not included formally in the agenda.

Items covered that weren't listed: (see previous posting)

*The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads. Action will most assuredly be addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard. In fact, Selectperson Smart found that the minutes of selectboard meeting 9-13-10, stating Selectman Herrick's motion to address the action taken, were not quite adequate. Transcript of the 9-13-10 meeting in hand, she requested that the additional words be added.

Below are the words from the minutes of the 13th, (A) , followed by the 2 sections of the actual motion, in red. (B)

In response to a request from two landowners to reconsider a vote taken in June 2010 to approve ATV usage for Parson's Road:

(A) A motion was made by Mr. Herrick to move the meeting scheduled for December 13, 2010 to October 25, 2010.

Selectperson Smart's expanded inclusion for the minutes, to be added and approved at the next meeting:

(B)Selectman Herrick: I make a motion that we postpone this issue that we originally voted on last meeting, and move it up to a date in October to discuss further action on this issue.

After that meeting, after that stake holder meeting, after that stake holder meeting is done and over with the town manager, then we, at one of our dated meetings for the month, will discuss the outcome of the results of that meeting. But October 25th, we will revisit, and hopefully that will make the decision whether we rescind our vote in June - or what actually will fly.

*6 month evaluation of the town manager.
Chairman Glover: "We must set a time and a place for... [editor's note: "for" more discussion than the executive session on September 8th evidently allowed, plus preparation for] the evaluation of the town manager. Then we have to set a date to meet with Phil and deliver the evaluation."

It would appear that this event will actually transpire. Sooner rather than later. Somewhere in October, maybe?

*The undesignated fund balance. Yes. What about this?

By their omission

2010-09-26T15:11:00.000-07:00

Monday 9-27-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office, 7 PM. Agenda here. Items of business for our town.

Some timely topics, however, do not appear to be formally included on the agenda... such as:

* Paris town manager P. Tarr and his adjoining role as president of the Norway Paris Solid Waste Board. Not to comment on the effect of Tarr's work on the NPSW.

But, to comment on the question of whether this role has taken him away from duties for which he is currently paid - by us - namely, the administrative duties for the Town of Paris. Have others in the office staff been left to carry out the duties he is supposed to cover? Do we know the answer to that? You sure?

* This undesignated fund balance that is evidently supposed to be paying for all the un-planned-for expenses in the town - mentioned by our town manager from time to time as the ultimate source needed to cover municipal needs here and there....

What is the balance, as a matter of fact? Who is monitoring that? Does everyone understand the standard protocol and recommended procedure for how the undesignated fund balance is intended to work? There are some of us who do....

* The ATV trail riders and land owners on specific roads who met Thursday 9-23-10. Hopefully the next steps will be outlined in this venue at some point. Those who attended that meeting, described quite accurately in the Sun Journal Friday 9-24-10, already know, but action has not yet been addressed in the official minutes of the Paris selectboard.

*The 6 month evaluation of the town manager. No less than 2 selectboard meetings (8-23-10 and 8-09-10) and one special executive session (9-08-10) have been devoted to it. What's happening? Is there to be a 6 month evaluation or not? P. Tarr was hired in January 2010. We are only 3 months shy of January. For all the discussion and apparent concern, we are getting closer to a full year, here. There has not been a 6-month evaluation for any town manager recently. What's up? Or was up and isn't anymore? Or isn't going to be... etc....

Some citizens don't notice these things. Others do. And then they remind others....

Who will come?

2010-09-22T17:48:00.000-07:00

Thursday September 23 at 5:30 PM at the Paris fire station there will be a meeting of ATV operators, and landowners who live on any roads involved in the recent decision handed down by the town giving ATV operators permission to use certain public roads as cross-over means to connect to off-road trails. (see previous TPR posting Same process for everybody, 9-15-1010.)

It is the understanding of TPR that Parsons Road, Elm Hill Road, Brett Hill Road are involved. It is also TPR's understanding that relevant parties were notified by the town about the meeting. The voting public at large, in the town of Paris, is welcome as well.

One hopes that will include at least some of Paris' selectboard members. Information gleaned at tomorrow's meeting should prove most informative, and would assist them in their efforts to respond effectively in their October 25 deliberations and public discussion (referred to above in TPR's previous posting.)

It is also to be hoped that, if the town manager is going to be the mediator/facilitator of this discussion, he has done his homework and is fully prepared.

No decision will be forthcoming at the end of this meeting; but there are very strong feelings on both sides of the question, not the least of which have been caused by the lack of a proper public discussion with all stakeholders long before decisions were made by the town and things worked themselves into a potentially explosive situation.

Word is that an elected official, or two, at the state level, have been invited. Someone, it would seem, feels that there might be a serious - or at least noteworthy - discussion Thursday at 5:30.

Come and see.

Same process for everybody

2010-09-15T13:51:00.000-07:00

Monday's Paris selectboard meeting hosted well over 45 folks: reporters and cameraman; officials at the front table; a sizeable representation of ATV owners, club members as well as individuals; a smaller representation of landowners along the Parsons Road where the ATV route crosses between trails; and the 7-8 regulars who continue to exercise their general interest in municipal proceedings as Paris voters.

Agenda item #8, to consider a process for group - or individual - requests for access to public roads or property, was very timely.

After a lengthy discussion including fair opportunity for each side of the question, it seemed clear to uninvolved (albeit not uncaring) listeners in the audience that there had been no process at all, just information presented, several people doing homework, some more, or less, than others.

But without specific directions, a workable solution has less chance of emerging; expectations can not possibly be clear. Even if the old saying "You can't please everyone" keeps cropping up, at least if there was a clear directive that spoke to all parties concerned, there would be fewer surprises on all sides.

Consider: a speed limit of 35mph on Any Imaginary Road. Who hasn't traveled more than 35 mph on such a road when conditions seemed to merit? And who has had any success arguing with an officer of the law if stopped ? There are really no surprises when the rule is clear.

Otherwise, without a clear process, the citizens of this town - be they recreational groups, landowners, or elected officials trying to iron things out - are faced with re-inventing the wheel every time a new concern erupts, just like we have in the current road use issue.

Quoting the existing laws is not the answer. There seem to be other steps necessary, because there are unresolved issues here.

More homework, or perhaps more awareness all around, might have helped prevent the serious concerns and anger threatening to break loose. Maybe. But without a workable tool, there is too much open to interpretation, too much ambiguity. And the result is that no one is really protected - on any side.

So. There are evidently plans in the works for concerned parties to meet - imminently - with the town manager, to gather information that will be used in a selectboard discussion at the October 25 selectboard meeting, rather than the December 13 meeting as previously stated.

This seems to be a reasonable step toward a solution. Citizens on all sides deserve to have the hearing they should have had before any decision was officially made.

Note: there will need to be skillful and careful facilitation, by an individual both sides of the question can trust, in the sharing of comments. Although both sides need to have their interests well represented, packing the room with hundreds on one side and 15 on the other side will not make the solution more workable - it will simply appear as a threat, people will dig in their heels; and there will be no solution at all.

Only rampant anger. We've had that in this town before, and it does not work.

There has to be a process crafted that makes absolutely clear what is being asked and who is responsible, #1; a meeting of all stakeholders must be set up, #2; then, and only then, should the selectboard become involved to have their input and discussion, and take their action.

The business of the town...

2010-09-12T17:42:00.000-07:00

...continues to happen and decisions get made that affect us all. Monday 9-13-10 Paris selectboard meets at 7 pm, town office. Agenda posted here.

Consider item #7: a request to reconsider a vote taken on 6/28/10 re. public road usage by ATVs. [editor's note: 6/28/10, item #15 was Discussion and action on ATV club road usage. A verbal request was presented by the X-tra Mile ATV club, along with a copy of their letter sent to land owners. A map outlining the plans involved was presented as well. Full information could be found on the NPC-TV recording, for that date.]

[editor's note: 8/23/10: The same issue was addressed again, this time by some of the land owners who were not pleased with the activity that resulted from the decision on 6-28. This 9-13 meeting will be the 3rd time the issue of ATV's using certain public roads in Paris has been addressed.]

When questions are brought to the selectboard, citizens are looking for a public decision that will be in keeping with the rules that are set up to govern the town. Sometimes the processes we need are not as clear as they should be - sometimes they are even non-existent. Sometimes laws and ordinances involved don't cover the issues as adequately as they need to, and ambiguity allows for misunderstandings.

Misunderstandings grow and fester, and need to be addressed immediately and fairly. One would trust that our public officials will listen with unbiased ears, and allow for the possibility that additional action might need to be considered.

This town belongs to all of us - officials, landowners, recreational groups - taxpayers all.

There's an agenda?

2010-09-09T21:13:00.000-07:00

A few excerpts of dialogue here from the first 12 minutes or so of the special meeting of Paris selectboard, Wednesday evening, 9-08-10.

Actually, from a few minutes before the meeting started, because a citizen in the audience asked if she could ask a question right then, knowing there were no citizen comments after the meeting started. Permission was granted.

[editor's note: The following are excerpts, taken, in order, from an audio tape recording of the public session of the meeting. The entire transcript of that recording is not included here in the defense of public sanity.]

Citizen: "What is this meeting tonight about?" [editor's note: as published in the agenda last TPR posting, the agenda item read; "Enter into Executive Session - ...to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager." ]

Chairman Glover: "...discuss the process, or how to do an evaluation, or discuss the evaluation, or...do an evaluation...."

Selectwoman Smart: "I thought we were, tonight, going to talk about the process we were going to use -because, remember, that's why we... "

Chair. G.: "Well, that's what...the agenda item says..."

Chair G.: ..."But I agree if we're just talking about a process, it does not require an executive session."

Citizen: "...and how does that... "

Chair G.:"But, I don't believe that this group is going to not say something on a personal basis to... hmm...the person that we're evaluating. And if we're discussing the person to be evaluated, then that needs to be in executive session."

Sel. S.: "Well, I thought we were not discussing the person; we were only setting up a process designing, with..."

Chair G: "..I had a process set up the first meeting this was brought up. But, then, we kept getting questions, after questions, after questions, and I finally said, well, let's have a special meeting to decide how we're going to do it."

Selectman Kurtz: "I made the offhand comment a few meetings ago that maybe...if we had a meeting among ourselves before we met with the town manager...instead of walking into the room for the very first time with the other select people, not having said anything to them, not having any idea how [names each board member] feels; I just come and just talk and everybody says what he or she feels and we get a hodgepodge."

Chair G.: [talking over Sel. Kurtz's comments above, who then talked over Ch. Glover, both then talking simultaneously] " That's why the forms were provided to everybody - because it's a formal process of just sending out a questionnaire. It's not as unstructured as you intimate."

Citizen: "But you don't seem to be on the same page as to what's going to happen this evening."

Discussion continued. Meeting still not started. Confusion was mounting ....

Citizen: "Ted...are you looking to change the evaluation form as it sits?"

Sel. K.: "No."

Citizen: "Then it isn't about the process - it's about discussing."

Sel K: "My reason is to have a discussion in executive session about the town manager. I could care less about the form."

The meeting did officially open, with pledge of allegiance and all, and then the discussion continued, because, after all there was... an agenda...

Process? No process? evaluation? comments that need to NOT be shared with the public? Well, an executive session had been warranted, as two board members pointed out, and somehow there had to be a way to get this thing off the ground.

Sel. K.:"I move we enter executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405 (6)(A) to discuss to - all ramifications of the evaluation of the town manager."

Motion was seconded; discussion; Selectman Herrick and Selectwoman Smart tried to get information straight and Chairman Glover tried to make it clear he just didn't know what was going to happen.

Chair. G.: "I honestly can't tell you what the agenda really is going to turn out to be - that's half the problem."

Time was passing. Chairman Glover finally referenced the motion - twice:
"...we do have a motion and a second on the floor to enter executive session."
Then,
"I will call for the vote: All those in favor of going into executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA § 405(6)(A), raise your right hand."

No restating Selectman Kurtz's actual motion; no restatement of the original agenda item that started this whole business. Just plain old "executive session."

The vote to go into executive session passed 4-1, selectwoman Smart voting against.

So they met. And they discussed the proverbial "Whatever.. "

Three questions:
*What happened here?

*Why didn't the agenda simply state that the topic to justify going into an executive session was to prepare for the evaluation of the town manager?

and.....

*What's up with the town manager anyway?

An agenda...

2010-09-07T15:48:00.000-07:00

...and a few questions.

At their special meeting Wednesday, 9-08-10, at 6:30 pm, Paris Selectboard will enter into executive session "to discuss the process on how to do an evaluation of the Town Manager."
(see agenda)

Questions come to mind:
*"the process on how to do..." Most certainly a procedure would be necessary for an evaluation. Procedures, as well as policies, are currently being updated, even created, on more than one front in the municipal works of the town of Paris. Procedures are the nuts and bolts of the movement of those municipal works, and will be most helpful if they are efficient.

But why would that need an executive session? What's sensitive in this?

*The agenda for the selectboard meeting of Monday 8-09-10 included item #22:"Enter into executive session ...to discuss midterm year evaluation of the Town Manager" Evaluation forms were distributed to individual board members to note thoughts and observations of the town manager in preparation for a group evaluation, but no action was taken on the item at that time.

Once again, agenda of meeting Monday 8-23-10, item #16: "Discussion and action on the process of evaluation of the town manager." When one board member noted not being brought into the loop of why item 16 vs an executive session, Chairman Glover said he had made an executive decision on that. It was not clear if any others at the front table knew ahead of time about the decision.

Even so, instead of discussion and action on the process, a meeting for September 8th was set to discuss the process. No mention at that time of when an actual evaluation might take place.

So, the wording on this topic of evaluation, including a process for it, has gone from
"discuss midterm evaluation," to "discussion...on the process of evaluation," to "discuss the process on how to do an evaluation."

Why is this discussion so hard to get started? Why is there a discussion at all? Why an evaluation now, if there has not been precedent for midterm evaluations for town managers?

And, why is this process planning part sensitive enough to need an executive session?

Maine's Freedom of Access Act, Title 1, §405, 6A(1) states that "An executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violated." [emphasis added]

This is the law. But if, somehow, there is permission within the law to meet and figure out what to do as a group before the group officially evaluates, then why doesn't the agenda item for Wednesday's executive session read:

"Discussion in preparation for an evaluation of the town manager?"

Seems unnecessary to go to so much bother if there's nothing to hide....

This is where we are

2010-09-06T17:20:00.000-07:00

Two weeks from the last Paris selectboard meeting, one week to go: the second and forth Mondays.

No written news does not necessarily mean things are nowhere.... It simply indicates that unless a public information situation arises there will not be fabricated information presented.

This is where we are:

*This Wednesday Sept. 8 the Paris Selectboard will meet in executive session to discuss "a process for evaluating the town manager.” This semi annual review has not been a pattern in recent years. Perhaps this one is in deference to the town of Paris' personnel policy that requires every newly hired employee serve a 6 month probationary period?

But can such an evaluation be a bad thing? Expectations can be presented on both sides of the equation.

Perhaps there will be a discussion of sick leave , and how and when it kicks in?

One assumes another executive session to actually evaluate the town manager will follow in the near future.

And one hopes that the general voting public would be notified if there was any problem, any discrepancy, any irregularity that they should be informed of. Because, otherwise, one tiny little citizens' watch group would have their hands full, wouldn't they?

*ATV's and any citizen concerns thereof are at a standstill for the moment.

*Next Monday 9-13-10 Paris Selectboard will have their regular meeting. The public is welcome.

*Tuesday 9-14-10 the Paris Planning Board will hold a public hearing at the town office for the Grace Baptist Church 5 day per week Christian day school. The school is on Paris Hill Road, part way up the hill beyond Mink Farm Road. This will be the second (or is it third) in the series. The Paris Planning board is working at best capacity with the ordinances at hand.

*There is a rate increase in the future for Paris Utility District. A hefty one. Last word was that the next meeting would be September 20.

*Norway Paris Solid Waste - a half-million dollar budget of tax payer dollars...a new board and new input. But an open question as to where it all will lead....

This is our town. We all have to keep watch.

Connecting with people

2010-08-23T21:41:00.000-07:00

What you may not read about in the newspapers about the meeting tonight can be summed up under the umbrella of the need for connecting with people.

During Citizen's Comments there was a request, echoed by more than one person, to consider some enhanced publicizing for public hearings - for all town boards or committees, especially on topics that might prove controversial.

It is less likely that voters are apathetic about town matters or that they refuse to come out to public hearings; perhaps more likely, they simply may not know about a hearing, or plan, or decision.

If attendance is not high (or worse, nonexistent...) at forums where the public is actually allowed to speak, even though a publicizing plan for the forum is in place, then it cannot hurt to consider beefing up the publicizing.

The theme of communication with the public seemed destined to continue. Of the approximately 30 people in the audience tonight, a good 25 or so came to support - or respond to - a concern by several land owners on Parsons Road about noise from ATV's now regularly using part of the road as a result of an earlier ok by the selectboard. They felt that decisions had been made on top of them - that they had no say in it.

We as citizens don't like to feel we have been kept in the dark, or that something or someone might be infringing on our space - or that we don't matter.

But, tonight, several good things emerged as a special section of the meeting devoted to this topic unfolded.

It became obvious, as the discussion progressed, that one audience member representing one particular side of the issue, plus at least one board member, perhaps two, and the town manager had already talked and prearranged a little here and there.

Nevertheless, there was:

* an attempt to allow actual citizen input, even if a couple of people were stopped mid-sentence, and a couple more aggressive speakers just kept going and were not stopped;

*a tiny beginning of dialogue, not only between audience members with opposing views, but between some board members and audience speakers;

*a real move, by two board members, to connect with the people speaking, to the point where each of the two said, at different points during the session, in their own individual ways, that they were genuinely sorry about the situation.

*an interest by the Oxford ATV club, also the X-tra Mile ATV club, to try to work with the land owners; and the landowners, though standing their ground, accepted a 3 month period of adjustment, agreeing to a meeting early in December for a conclusion, and in the interim, a meeting of landowners and ATV club reps.

There are still a few facts that need to be double-checked about what was actually said at the original meeting and voted on.

There is more facilitating needed between those who make the rules and those who are affected by them. There was too much quoting of law.... not a useful tool in discussions like tonight's....

...and a little arrogance and patronizing that needs tempering....

But this town, any town, is about people - laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances notwithstanding. Making this town work is about valuing the people in the town. All of them, not just the convenient or the loud or the intimidating. The laws and ATVs and roads and ordinances - and all the rest - will fit in as the people allow them to.

Discussion and action

2010-08-22T17:04:00.000-07:00

Monday August 23 at 7 PM Paris Selectboard will meet at the town office. Agenda here.

Items of interest:
*No mention of an executive session. # 16 refers to "the process of evaluation of the town manager."

*Category for "Selectmen concerns/requests" continues to be at or near the end of the agenda. Since meetings have run long, many attendees have already left. Some board member comments have been relevant to pertinent issues - one or two even provoking a conversation by tired board members at a very late hour - and would have been of interest to voters.

If the selectboard is not required to put their concerns before the public as items specifically listed on the agenda, perhaps the category might be moved up just after citizen comments? If the category is important enough to include, why not have it heard?

Or leave it off; and have selectboard concerns included as regular agenda items.

*Always a point of interest that important issues - perhaps controversial items - requiring discussion, like # 16, are pushed way to the end. Fewer citizens stay through to the end of these longer meetings.

There will always be a certain few who stay, however. No matter how late. This town belongs to all of us, and it's better to know more, rather than less, about what goes on inside our municipal machine.... and about the people running it.

What public?

2010-08-16T06:56:00.000-07:00

Public information.

In the context of a board discussion about an upcoming 6-month evaluation of the town manager, the previous posting referred to laws that facilitate the public's access to information that is about us, or is relevant to us, but that is not always available to us as citizens and taxpayers.

At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966, provides guidelines and directions for federal agencies to maintain records, and make them available to the public under certain circumstances.

Also at the federal level, in 1974, the Privacy Acts Amendments were to allow individual citizens to see records about themselves from federal investigative agencies, e.g., FBI, US Customs & Border Protection, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.

Maine's Freedom of Access Act, passed in 1975, covers access to both public proceedings and public records. The law is often called the "Right-to-Know Law." It indicates that public proceedings exist to aid in conducting the public's business; that, in public proceedings (e.g., a town's selectboard or council meeting), actions are to be taken openly; that records are to be open to inspection; and that deliberations are to be conducted, for the most part, openly.

[editor's note: TPR refers readers to Findlaw.com as well as Wikipedia.org for more information on the 3 laws referred to here.]

These laws exist to protect the right of individuals to have access to information that can affect their lives. There are things that people need to know and understand directly. One of the costs of having someone else tell us what we "need to know" is that we become subject to someone else's agenda.

Concerning the FOAA, there are exceptions to "conducted openly," and they come in section 405, Executive Sessions. There are certain categories of discussion that are considered sensitive and are allowed to be held away from the public. The discussions are circumscribed however, to minimize keeping things secret from the public.

For example, discussions of sensitive personnel matters that could damage a person's reputation could be handled in executive session; but, any kind of action following such discussions can only be handled in open session.

At the 8-09-10 selectboard meeting there was mention of an evaluation form to be filled out by each board member in preparation for this evaluation of the town manager. The question was asked: can information placed on each individual form be shared with the other board members ahead of time? In other words, to be sure everyone is "on the same page," can there be a private discussion among board members before the conversation with the town manager?

It might well be that, when a group of people is evaluating one person, there is a need to have a private, fact gathering discussion outside the presence of the person to be evaluated. To make that logistically possible, a meeting without the manager and the public may have to take place.

Red flag:

* An executive session announced to discuss the manager's contract, and an immediate demand for another executive session to prepare for it.

There may well be a world of difference in the actual evaluation in this upcoming session vs the "evaluation" S. Jackson received 6-22-09. But a week ago, 8-09-10, in that room, more than one person squirmed.

Think about this: how would we know if there was something going on with an employee hired by officials we have elected? How can we be certain we are being told the whole story? If all discussion occurs in executive session, and we see only the results, how are we going to learn the whole truth? How do we know, and how do we learn, to trust?

There is a long way to go before there are enough trusting citizens in the town of Paris who are going to swallow explanations given by any board member just quoting laws - or before board members receive an automatic benefit of the doubt on important issues.

Trust is earned by actions, not words alone. And it is in short supply, if board members look around at - and listen to - many of the people who put them in office.

It is not a successful ploy to quote laws ad nauseam.

A minority of board members listen for the question behind the question - not just the part that can be used for pontificating or bullying.

Others need to watch and learn.

Business, taxes, and public information

2010-08-10T06:06:00.000-07:00

Regular stuff of municipal life.

Paris selectboard dealt with regular business last night: authorizing payroll, paying bills, filling vacancies on town committees. All of this information is on record and can be examined if any citizen is interested. Most aren't interested because the information is pretty mundane, complex, and there is an awful lot of it.

Taxes. Always there, a larger burden or a smaller one.... Mil rate, overlay, clear understandings of implications and explanations...

...TPR might take a look at those.

As for public information: now there's an issue. It is an interesting point that the media becomes the most vocal operative on that issue - perhaps because information is their bread and butter. It has to be said that sometimes the public media has been a sad source of public betrayal.

However, the fact remains that the issue - of information about and pertinent to the public being made available to the public - is so critical that laws have been crafted at both the state and federal level as vehicles for the public to have access to information that has in the past been hidden - and could easily still be.

The US Freedom of Information Act (Title 5, U.S.C.,§552) passed in 1974, and Maine's Freedom of Access Act (Title 1, M.R.S.A., §401,et.seq.) passed in 1975, are operative pieces of legislation. Although there are times when it really is necessary to protect a sensitive situation from premature release of information, there are countless attempts to manipulate and block information by blanket phrases like "national security," "privileged information," "need to know," and more.

Or

the suggestion that was thrown about at last night's meeting by one selectman, in reference to an employee evaluation coming up - having an executive session [editor's note: secret] to be sure each selectperson is in accord before meeting with the employee.

Does this remind Paris voters of a situation in this town 6-22-09? .

TPR will visit this topic in more detail.

At the 2-week mark

2010-08-08T15:18:00.000-07:00

So. Did the special town meeting on July 26th accomplish what it set out to do? About 70 Paris voters made the time to come to the Paris Fire Station in the middle of summer to do their part. Not to mention the town office staff who repeatedly have been pressed into extra service in recent weeks.

There were informed citizens who spoke out and asked pertinent questions. This is what should happen; and it did. The meeting moved according to protocol, and rudeness did not slow things down as it did at the annual town meeting in June. Bravo, Moderator Vern Maxfield.

The 4 items on the agenda were not block busters: the medical marijuana issue has never been fully discussed in public, despite the public hearing opportunity that felt like it was slipped in one day just before a selectboard meeting. The decision to go with a moratorium has only postponed any real decision making.

The payment to the former town manager did not need to be on the warrant at all - in the form that it appeared - to be voted on by anybody [editor's note: the only thing the selectboard needed from the public was the ok to release the funds from one budget source or another]; though there was a palpable force in the room when the unanimous "yes" vote was taken, lest the selectboard lose heart and default on their long-time-in-coming decision.

The Paris fire department. How can we not be supportive...how can we not think that Chief Frost has the best interest of this town in his thinking...how can we not bite the bullet and cough up the funds necessary? It would seem that some people think there is some other way to protect us and our homes...? Perhaps they will be more forthcoming in the Monday night meeting.... So the decision to go with Chief Frost's request - supported by some on the selectboard - to accept a portion of the fire fighters as regularly paid employees - still faces some challenges.

TPR feels that each individual voter must make his or her own decision on this and all matters. It would seem obvious who cares about this town, and who has an individual perspective with a personal spotlight attached.

And then there is the decision on when an elected selectboard official takes office. Just get on with it. Pick a date - stick with it, move on. The lawsuit is done; there is no need to fiddle around any more. The voters attending did just that - they voted, and showed every intention of moving on.

There followed the regular selectboard meeting: selections for committees; arguments for why this or that should happen or not.

And now we are at the 2-week mark in the month: where the selectboard meets again, giving the public a window on who they are, how they work, and what is really at stake in how our town is run....on our dollar.

Monday, August 9th, Paris town office, selectboard meets at 7 pm. Agenda here. Come if you can. Decisions are made that we pay for - one way or another.

We all have a stake

2010-07-25T13:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Spend our money, cont.

2010-07-21T14:07:00.000-07:00

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.

They're going to spend our money...

2010-07-19T17:25:00.000-07:00

...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...

Conduct unbecoming

2010-07-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

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...

2010-07-14T13:12:00.000-07:00

... 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?

A gathering of thoughts

2010-07-13T12:52:00.000-07:00

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

On your calendar

2010-07-11T15:30:00.000-07:00

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.

A few more things...

2010-07-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

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.

The hundred thousand dollar question

2010-07-08T15:29:00.000-07:00

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.

A Good Question

2010-06-29T14:03:00.000-07:00

It was an interesting...and lengthy meeting Monday evening. The Sun Journal posted a few succinct observations on line early this morning, Tuesday, 6-29-10 - "Chair, vice-chair chosen for Paris board." A lot of business was checked off, people were appointed, accomplishments were noted, points of law were referred to, smiles were exchanged. And there were some comments with merit.

Really, to fully appreciate our municipal machine at work , you need to see it happening. A call to NPCTV this afternoon confirmed that the full 2 hour, 45 minutes and 55 seconds recording of the 6-28-10 meeting will be broadcast on NPCTV at 4 pm today, Tuesday, and again on Sunday, July4, at 6:30.

Unfortunately, there was a glitch in the sound of their recording, and almost the first hour or so had no sound...

The glitch in the video recording is unfortunate, because, during citizen's comments, beginning with Selectboard Member Smart, some thoughtful observations were offered on the accomplishments of former manager Jackson's tenure, as well as some positive comments by other board members on the mediation process itself.

If you're a little pressed for time... just cut to the chase,and, for the piece de resistance, tune in 2 hours and 33 minutes into the broadcast.... No one could have scripted this last section. Oh...wait: actually, someone did. We will not give the plot away. You will simply have to look and see. [editor's note: TPR has not seen the tape to the end at this precise moment of posting - here's hoping the sound is engaged.]

One very good question was heard in Citizen's Comments at the meeting, however, in reference to the settlement agreed on in the mediation last Thursday for Jackson vs the Town of Paris. It would appear that the question was aimed in the general direction of The Ones Who Shall Not Be Named, and Never Blamed - the 3 former elected officials of this town who initiated the untimely and vengeful action that brought crisis, chaos, and hatefulness in good supply to the town of Paris:

"What did all this cost the town of Paris? From beginning to end? Legal fees, double pay for town managers, the whole thing?"

Selectmen and town manager hastened to agree that an accounting would most certainly be forthcoming, to present at a special town meeting on July 26, when the agreed-on settlement figure will be among the warrant articles put before the public.

TPR has already started a list of costs; readers may remember some figures have already been posted on this site. But we will absolutely continue our homework - in case anyone else might forget....

Included on the list of expenses should be: 1.) legal bills for this topic, by month, July 2009 - June 2010, ( possibly longer); 2.) election costs 2-05-10; 2-08-10; 3-03-10; 3.) costs special town meeting 1-07-10; 4.) advertising costs new town mgr(s); 5.) salary interim town mgr.; 6.) total severance pay and benefits former mgr. before mediation; 7.) settlement agreement - meaning back pay and severance pay dating from the recognized date of firing, 10-08-10.

There will surely be more....

Reminder and Clarification

2010-06-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

Reminder:

The town's business, all 23 items of it, will be addressed Monday 6-28-10 at the selectboard's meeting in the town office at 7 PM. Items 3-7 should be...a matter of form. Depending on what else emerges in addition to the words on the agenda [editor's note: linked in the previous 2 postings] there are possibilities of this being a meaty time. Some of us will stay til the bitter end.

Point of Clarification:

Since it does not appear that the Town of Paris has issued a public statement, to date, with results of the mediation session Thursday 6-24-10 that resulted in a settlement agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding on the Jackson vs Town of Paris Rule 80 B Complaint, it would seem that TPR is, to date, the sole media observer.

So, to make the points in TPR's Friday 6-25-10 posting Memorandum of Understanding, crystal clear, with no possibility of innuendoes or grey areas - or in spite of any spin that may emerge at Monday's selectboard meeting:

From TPR's Friday posting, "...the sum agreed on was $32,502.76 - the amount, based on the terms of Jackson's contract, that would have been due to her in back pay and severance, if the calculation is done from 10-08-09, the date when the original termination (6-22-09) was "ratified."

Further explanation:

The town's case against Jackson was led from August 2009 - March 2010... by a complete absence of much of anything at all.

The town's case was, however, led vigorously from March to present time by Selectman Kurtz (followed strenuously by most of the rest of the board), who held strongly that Jackson's case was not based on any legal complaint.

Looking to find a way to retrieve her job, on the basis of a 1999 warrant item voted in the affirmative by Paris voters that stated selectmen elected in Paris' annual election in June would be seated as of July 1, Jackson charged in her July 21, 2009 80 B Complaint that Selectman Ripley, newly elected 6-08-09 and sworn in after the town meeting 6-12-09, was not legally seated on 6-22-09 when he voted, in a 3-2 vote, to fire her.

The relative Maine statue, 30-A MRSA sec.2526, cited repeatedly by Kurtz, but also posted in its entirety several times on TPR, gives no credence to past practice (a term bounced around the board) in choosing the time a newly elected selectman is seated. Rather it allows the legislative body to choose the term. If no choice is made, either by charter or by the town, the only thing the statute sets is the number of selectmen and how long the term is; no statement is made indicating when the term begins or ends.

Connecting the dots:

The Town of Paris' response to Jackson hung on the opinion/belief that selectmen newly elected in the annual June election should be seated right after the annual town meeting; that the decision of the Paris voters in the 1999 Warrant directing that newly elected selectmen be seated on, or after July 1 - was not valid.

Former Selectman Ripley was seated June 22. The Town of Paris' response to Jackson would indicate that Ripley was seated accurately, and that his vote counted in the firing. In fact, the board at that time, apparently wanting to try to make sure the 6-22-09 vote counted, ratified (gave approval for) it on 10-08-09.

The current board has spent many thousands of our dollars on "questions and research" [editor's note: see, for example, TPR posting 6-22-10 Let's talk money]. We can only assume they were heavily invested in their point, and were looking for information to support it.

One can surmise, then, that the reason the figures in the settlement above appear to have been calculated from October 8, 2009, is because that would be the actual date of the firing, i.e., all 3 of the 3-2 vote to fire were legally seated and the vote was valid.

One can also surmise that during the mediation session Thursday, our selectboard must have accepted that the 1999 warrant vote for newly elected Paris selectmen to be seated on July 1 or after, holds. Otherwise, why would there have been an agreement to that specific amount? From a board whose majority had, to that point, appeared to have shown little interest in settling at all?

Heard about town, since Thursday, from a selectman or two... "This will go away;" "This will all be forgotten." "This will all blow over."

Do you remember a selectman - no longer with us - who said, on August 4, 2009, "This will all die down. As soon as everyone stays home, we can get back to business as usual." ?

Addendum to Monday's agenda

2010-06-25T13:29:00.000-07:00

Relating to the post below, items 16,17,18 listing "see attached sheet:"
these links show lists that appear to be for the selectboard to weigh in on.

Item 16

Item 17

Item 18

And on Monday the 28th...

2010-06-25T12:21:00.000-07:00

...the Paris selectboard will gather for their regular bi-monthly business meeting, 7 pm at the town office. Agenda here.

A full agenda. Some appointments to be announced (items 16,17,18) and a couple of elections (items 22,23).

Nothing listed on the agenda to indicate there was any recent point of interest on a certain law suit...and that there is a next step required.

Perhaps the fact that the vote to settle was already taken, no one really needed to know anything more? Perhaps there will be a verbal reference.....

Memorandum of Understanding

2010-06-25T09:30:00.000-07:00

About 4 pm Thursday 6-24-10, a vote of the Paris selectboard was taken that affirmed a negotiated resolution of the lawsuit brought by former town manager Sharon Jackson against the Town of Paris. The results of that vote will be reflected in the minutes of the public part of the selectboard's meeting.

The vote was taken as the board came out of the executive session begun at 8 AM Thursday, and was recessed for the 5 selectboard members to meet in Lewiston at the office of Atty. Peter J. DeTroy, of the firm Norman, Hanson, & DeTroy, mediator, to address the lawsuit.

After about 6 hours of mediation, the sum agreed on was $32,502.76 - the amount, based on the terms of Jackson's contract, that would have been due to her in back pay and severance, if the calculation is done from 10-08-09, the date when the original termination (6-22-09) was "ratified."

Calculating the amount from this date would suggest that the October date of "ratification" for the original firing, rather than the date of the original firing itself, was the correct and accepted vote to establish the termination.

The wording of the memorandum indicates that there will need to be "necessary authorization by the legislative body of the Town of Paris," and that will likely happen soon in the form of a special town meeting.

8 AM Thursday...

2010-06-23T13:49:00.000-07:00

...June 24, there will be a special Paris selectboard meeting at the town office; some of us will probably be there, no matter the hour. Agenda here, in stark black and white.

To our selectboard: [ editor's note: Even though addressed to the board, this is a message for all of us, as well.]
We are all owners of this town, you board members and we voters. This town, the property and the lives of the people in it, are affected by you and your decisions; but they are also affected by us and our decisions. We are wrapped up together, and must be responsive to each other to make this town work.

You do not know what is best for us, nor do we get to hold you hostage to our demands.

We ask each of you :
As a member of our team of representatives headed to mediation Thursday morning, go prepared to be your own person; go prepared to make your decision(s) based on your own experience and history in this community. No one has forgotten the last year in this town. Nor will anyone forget how this will be handled Thursday.

Isn't it time for this to end?

Let's talk money

2010-06-22T21:07:00.000-07:00

OK. First up: Town of Paris Operating Budget, budget to actual figures [editor's note: prepared for town meeting 6-12-10] Citizens are soothed with encouraging words - not to worry - fine shape.

Perhaps.... Time will be the judge of that.

TPR wishes to focus on a particular line item that is, even without the June figures, 37% over budget. The line item for legal expenses in the 2008-09 budget was $8000; by the time the figures were printed for the town meeting in June, the current figure was $24,453.

About 39% of the total legal expenses to date have been the current lawsuit.

In previous postings, TPR has addressed legal costs - related to the lawsuit specifically - totaling about $3000, from July 2009 through December 2009. The total for January through end of May, however, not yet counting June, is more than twice that amount: $6,645. Roughly $9600 total .

Beginning in March, the bills have increased substantially, with costs for extensive preparation for meetings, requested research, questions to be answered, and then more research. By April the amount spent just on this case had grown to $2082.24; and by May, the research and questions to be answered had expanded to bring the total amount spent to $3205.50.

Consider: the whole first 6 months of the year didn't cost as much as what we have paid for the month of May.

And, for those who have the time to plow through it, May's bill shows almost $1600 worth of just questions and research. One wonders just what the quest was, and who initiated it. One also wonders if the reason the searches keep increasing is because what is wanted... simply isn't there.

So, next: Mediation on Thursday. One lawyer per side, plus sharing cost of the mediator. $250 per hour for Atty. Hole; estimating the mediator (lawyer) $250-$300 per hour, or $125-$150 each side. Each side talks, mediator talks to each, everyone meets again. 2-3 hours? More? Estimate anywhere from $625-$800.

Add legal costs of this case to date ($9600) to mediation estimate ($625-800) = $10,225-$10,400

And finally: If our elected officials cannot manage a responsible decision before, a full blown court trial: lawyer(s) preparing the case; lawyer(s) trying the case; court costs....

Rule of thumb, it is said, is that costs will start at triple whatever you're paying in legal costs at the moment. That puts us at about $30 K to $31K to start. Just the beginning....

The process escalates; the costs escalate; so much could have been prevented - even since March. There is no excuse for what this town is going to have to pay.

It is simply a matter of how much.

Heads Up

2010-06-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

It has finally come. This week, Thursday. Our selectboard opens a meeting at 8 am at the town office and will recess and go as a board to meet with a professional mediator to consider terms for negotiating a solution for the Rule 80B Complaint, Jackson v. the Town of Paris.

There is no more putting it off, no more time to create spin, no more pretending that if we refuse to look it will go away. No more looking for excuses for why our elected officials have dragged their feet and tried to go in every direction except straight ahead to deal with the crisis caused by a vengeful firing of a competent and widely respected town manager.

And no more looking for ways to avoid the simple fact that from March 2010, if there had been even a conversation - a series of questions and answers - a discussion - between (a) the selectboard that replaced the recalled and disgraced individuals, and (b) the former town manager, this town would not be one meager little step away from court and the threat of thousands of dollars in court and legal costs - because there are those who are, even now, counseling not to negotiate.

And still, even, at this eleventh hour, the individuals who perpetrated the firing are nowhere; and the focus is not on the wrongness of their actions - or the hundreds of people who made their political will known on this topic. And still, courage in decision-making by our elected officials is missing. By default the whole focus has become about the cost. It did not need to come to this...

Shame.

Didn't we elect five of them?

2010-06-21T19:45:00.000-07:00

A large packet of legal directives and general legal information printed out from the internet on lawyer-client privilege - one for each of the other 4 on the selectboard at the meeting with town attorney Hole on 6-15-10....

Is this part of the preparation for his letter to the editor from one selectman to the Advertiser Democrat 6-17-10 with his personal views of the town attorney handling the current lawsuit before the town?

As well as an explanation for an article in the Sun Journal 6-10-10, Kurtz Criticizes Town's Legal Representation ?

As well as laying the groundwork for being thought more capable than the current town attorney?

As well as building a case for being better prepared and more knowledgeable and all around smarter person than the current lawyer?

And what have the other 4 to say about this singular representation? Everybody agrees with him? It's ok for him to speak for everyone? He's the official spokesman?

It's ok for personal legal opinions to come through Selectman Kurtz? This is how the people in this town will be educated? Do the other 4 have any opinion on that? Any frustration at all? Any worry that they are being managed?

Consider the fact that we elected 5 selectpersons, not 4 selectpersons and one lawyer - a lawyer who appears to have a personal interest in how this case is conducted... against the individual who was town manager when this particular lawyer's law firm was officially not asked after 2006 to handle any new legal business for the town of Paris ...in favor of the current town attorney.

Didn't we elect five of them to work as a team? Where's the rest of the team? If voters in this town had wanted someone to tell us - and the rest of our elected officials - what we all should do because he knows best, we wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of recalling 2 of the crew who tried to do that exact thing to us last year.

Where is the rest of this board? Can they talk? Do they think? Can they not say "Enough!" if it's necessary? Why ever not?

And one more time

2010-06-15T04:42:00.001-07:00

Posted here is the agenda for Paris selectboard's meeting with town atty. Hole later today, 6-15-10. The executive session, of course, is not open to the public, even though the meeting itself is public information.

On June 24 the town of Paris will send a representative to a mediation session with a representative of the plaintiff's case in the 80-B Complaint, Jackson vs. the Town of Paris. One assumes instructions will be issued and questions answered...

...for those on our selectboard who wish to be educated.

However, for those on our board who have chosen a path of denial, denial, and not negotiating in any way because denial, for them, is the only meaningful course....and those who repeatedly replenish the supply of sand to cover their heads...

Raise your hands all those of you who hold out hope for sudden realistic negotiating at this late date. The accountability and, yes, wisdom of some elected leaders are under scrutiny.

We are now down to the dollar costs. Just that. Only. TPR has written words and words on that topic....

The $$$ costs facing this town, to date and projected - if court becomes the logical default, and whether Paris wins or not - will be discussed on a later posting on TPR.

This town is totally unprepared

They got down to business

2010-06-14T23:21:00.000-07:00

14 items tonight...and 2 hours and 45 minutes later, our new five member board finished the business they got down to.

A little slow getting out of the starting gate, though. There was immediate insistence - 8 minutes and 40 seconds of it, all told - from one selectman, that state statute required electing of a chair and vice chair before going another single step. "... it's something we're required by law to do at this meeting."

This from the selectman who has a previous interest in when the term begins and ends for a newly elected selectboard members. Was this an effort to sway thinking to his bias?
That, contrary to the choice made by Paris voters in 1999 - that life of the selectboard should begin on or after July 1 - the board before us tonight was starting its new life right now, its new members having been sworn in right after the town meeting in the 12th of June?

MRSA 2526 Choice and qualifications of town officials, especially subsection 4D that talks about term of office, was cited. More than once...However, when two other selectboard members looked at the statute for themselves, there was no concurrence with his interpretation of the statute . [ editor's note: TPR readers may come to their own conclusion; subsection 4D is highlighted in the link above..]

Chairman Glover settled the discussion by saying that the board would go by past practice and vote for chairman and vice chairman at the close of the last meeting in June. Curiously, this past practice seems closer to the wishes of the 1999 voters....

*Bills were paid; civil engineer Robert Prue presented plans that will allow work on Oxford Street and East Oxford Road;
*It had become apparent that medical leave as a policy was (a) already in place in the Employee Handbook, and (b) under revision by the Policy and Procedure Committee and so there would be no discussion tonight;
*Fire Chief Frost accepted the bid for the company who will build the tank truck.

And there was a brand new item for the town of Paris to consider: Patricia Pelletier, a local teacher at OHCHS, presented a detailed description of her request to establish a dispensary for (and thereby the growing of) medical marijuana. Even though Pelletier is faced with an approaching deadline, no decision could be made on the part of the town tonight because there were simply so many unknowns. It is likely a moratorium will be proposed to the voters, and an educational effort made on all fronts.

The selectboard (and audience) looked at some sample ordinances gathered ahead of time by Town Manager Tarr on how a moratorium on such a proposed project might work.

And then an interesting, rather informal conversation sprang up.
Mgr. Tarr: Will you look at the two sample ordinances that you have and tell me what you like?
Ch. Glover: Yep.
Mgr. Tarr: ...wordage...
Ch. Glover: We can be looking at these...
Selectman Kurtz: (addressing Mgr. Tarr) I like the second one...
Mgr. Tarr: ....versions....
Sel. K: (continuing to focus on Mgr. Tarr) Well, y'know, in terms of our dialog over the weekend, and today, I mean....and that came out from the first to the second...
Mgr. Tarr: Yeah. That was clarified today.

[editor's note: what was clarified is that over the weekend and today there was some private conferring; but, more importantly, this is not the first time there was a specific comment directed, in public, to Mgr. Tarr from this selectman, making very clear that there had been a private conversation between the two of them.]

Is that a problem? Do you wonder?

And then this, in a last item, under "Selectmen concerns":

Sel. Kurtz: I've been trying for the last month or so to sort out the legal issues involved in these questions.....something that would be extremely helpful to me would be to pick up the phone and call MMA...and have them talk to me.

...I did that, I was informed that the town of Paris has a kind of unusual arrangement with them, which is that only the town manager and the chairman of the selectboard... have access to them.

...I'd just like to raise this as a question, and ask why this is so? And, can we change it?

And these would be questions for our readers from TPR:

Do you remember what TPR asked over and over during the disasterous 7 month fiasco of last year? We asked: "Who's running this town?" Do you remember?

Getting down to business

2010-06-13T14:17:00.000-07:00

About 60 Paris voters gathered Saturday the 12th in the fire station to transact the annual business of the town, essentially the items that make up the budget for the following year.

The audience was orderly and attentive, and some people asked relevant questions that were reasonably answered. Vic Hodgkins, budget committee chair, came prepared to explain his committee's work. Several members of the audience were well versed in meeting protocol, and this particular audience found a whole new favorite set of words in "I move the question".

The Sun Journal has posted articles, both before and after the town meeting, giving information on the content of the meeting. [editor's note: the entire warrant for the annual meeting was posted on the previous site of TPR.]

What was not reported is a protocol item, as well, but for the selectboard itself. One specific board member has consistently displayed a habit of interrupting; jumping in with a question or point of challenge out of turn to speak over a person who had been waiting a turn to speak; and pontificating for no apparent reason other than to pontificate. This behavior was apparent at more than one point in the meeting Saturday; this behavior has been apparent at selectboard meetings; and this behavior seems equally unnecessary and inappropriate in either setting.

This is not to say that our former town attorney selectman does not have some ideas and opinions worth hearing.

It does say, however, that this arena is not the courtroom; this selectboard and the town manager are not his private staff; and his counsel and direction are not what his elected status now indicates a need for. He must now be a team player, and there are not a few voters waiting for the rest of the selectboard, especially its chairman, to make that clear.

Monday 6-14-10 at 7pm, our new 5 member selectboard will meet at the town office. One of the items on the agenda, is #11, Discussion and action on medical leave policy. The current Town of Paris Employee Handbook is, as a matter of fact, being updated and reworked by the Policy and Procedures Committee, at the request of the town manager. There are several sections in the current policy referring to vacation time, sick leave, benefits, etc. Posted here is the current statement on Sick Leave.

The selectboard is the final review board for policy in our municipal structure. It would seem they have specific concerns they wish to address on this topic of sick leave themselves at this point. Perhaps it may have to do with the recent borrowing ahead of paid sick leave recently granted without question to the current town manager?

So here we are...

2010-06-10T14:46:00.000-07:00

...with a full selectboard in Paris, now; ready to face the rigors of running this little town. The annual town meeting coming up Saturday, 6-12-10, Paris fire station, 10 AM; and at its conclusion the swearing into office of our latest 2 board members.

This point of swearing in at that particular moment - seems of optimum importance to a few individuals in this town, for a variety of reasons.... Perhaps that's noteworthy, perhaps not. Time will definitely be the judge of that.

But, as we ordinary citizens decide about casting votes hither and yon, on budgets and plans and projects, there are some interesting items to consider.

Things to bear in mind when we listen to specific individuals tell us what to do and what we ought to understand:

*We have a former Paris town attorney on our selectboard - that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But, this point - of when a newly elected selectman's term actually begins and ends ... does lend itself to wondering: was this previous-attorney-selectman, or his law partner, the practicing town attorney when a vote was taken by Paris voters at the annual town meeting in 1999 that established the specific term of office for Paris selectmen?

In D. Langeveld's article 6-10-10, "Kurtz criticizes town's legal representation" in the Sun Journal, Langeveld states that Kurtz "...served as the attorney for the town from 1974 until about 2008...". If this is so, one might note, with interest, this particular selectman's vehemence in protesting any force representing a view that disagreed with the view on this subject given in the 2005 letter from the firm of Kurtz & Perry, posted previously on this site, and written to address another issue.

During the 5-24-10 selectboard meeting, this selectman said, referring to the 1999 legislative action to define when selectmen's terms start and finish, "My position is that the 1999 ordinance is null and void - the town of Paris had no power to enact that - it's a nullity, legally...."

Could this selectman's protest extend as far as a bias on a law suit currently facing the town? A law suit the outcome of which this individual selectman gives the appearance of intending to influence?

* The law firm of this same selectman handled the legal work for the town of Paris up until 2006 - except for the specific case involving the ownership of the Colby Farm Road that ended in 2008; does one wonder if there may be some resentment that one's law firm was supplanted by the firm of Bernstein Shur - and our current town attorney G. Hole?

Is there any possible significance, or connection, to be derived from the fact that the town manager at the time of changing law firms was S. Jackson, the plaintiff in the current lawsuit facing the town of Paris?

And to settle the rest of the story

2010-06-09T07:18:00.000-07:00

Tuesday's election was only half of the process that sets out the coming year(s) for Paris. The rest of the plan is presented for discussion, and then vote of the people, at the open town meeting Saturday, 6-12-10, 10 AM at the fire station.

Money cannot be spent or decisions made unless that action is made in front of the people, and it is ultimately the voters who make the decisions. Granted, the plans are implemented through the officials elected by the people, as well as the committees and individuals appointed, even hired, by those officials.

The town meeting warrant lists 33 items, and is posted on this site. Items 1-4 were addressed in Tuesday's election. The remaining items focus on how taxpayers' dollars will be spent.

With the exception of any special town meetings called to address unforeseen expenses or events, Saturday's meeting will be the only occasion for Paris voters, as a body, to address the financial concerns leading from individual pocketbook to municipal function.

There is protocol for how the meeting is conducted; but this meeting is a guaranteed opportunity for voters to ask questions. Asking questions is the best way to learn about how this town is operating.

Interesting to consider: Who responded to the question? Did the question really get answered? Did the response raise additional questions that need to be answered?

This town belongs to all its citizens; this makes us all responsible.

Election in Paris, 6-08-10

2010-06-08T18:13:00.000-07:00

At the end of the day, here are the local figures. Readers will note that individual tallies make it clear that not all voters voted on all issues or candidates.

Town Clerk Liz Knox estimated total turnout at 1167 voters today, with the estimated absentee ballot count around 100. This is about 32% of Paris' 3600 registered voters.

Although not as great a turnout as November 2009 (2136 voters or 59.3%), today's turnout is pretty close to the count for the June 2009 election.

Local referendum items:
#1, amendments for subdivision ordinance, 579 Yes; 381 No.
#2,amendments for recall ordinance, 543 Yes; 411 No.

Paris Utility District trustee, 3 yr. term:
Janet Jamison - 585
Raymond Lussier - 396

SAD 17 Directors:
George Coffren - 836, 1 yr. term
Michael Dignan - 910, 3 yr. term

Selectmen for the Town of Paris:
Ted Kurtz - 862, 3 yr. term
Ken West - 866, 3 yr. term

Welcome aboard, folks! There is much to do.

The highest standard we can

2010-06-06T11:53:00.000-07:00

"We should be grateful that anyone even wants to run." [editor's note: Heard from a citizen in this community last Sunday, referring to the upcoming election Tuesday 6-8-10.]

Well, yes. Citizens in any municipality should always be grateful when another citizen is willing to do something extra. An individual's time is valuable, and should always be treated with respect.

But that does not mandate a free ride for anything like a personal agenda. We saw how that worked out last June 2009 ( newly elected officials made a disastrous decision that changed this town, as well as the lives of several individuals, for the foreseeable future);

...and November 2009 (1500 Paris voters put a new recall ordinance into place) ;

...and February 2010 (over 600 Paris voters, in two elections, recalled 2 of the 3 officials who made the disastrous decision in June 09, and prevented the recall of 2 other officials put on the chopping block by whim of game players).

This is not to say that either candidate for selectman on Tuesday's ballot is arriving with a personal agenda. And arriving it will be, since there is no contest for either seating, and the election will be a done deal for each of the two open seats. While uncontested in itself does not portend a negative, it does raise the stakes. Three years can be a long time if a decision turned out not to be for the best.

Voters are looking for a candidate who, in the elected role of insuring proper running of this town:
* is his or her own person;
* is not easily intimidated, but is able to listen and learn;
* is willing to find out facts for himself or herself.

Tuesday's ballot lists one new potential selectman, and another selectman running for re-election. Our one new selectman will make himself known in short measure.

And our one returning selectman, who finished out a term for a selectman removed by recall.... While bringing some hard questions into several board discussions on town matters, an observer might wonder if, during those 3 months, there were times this selectman forgot to remove his former Attorney for the Town of Paris hat...?

During the last 2 years, Geoff Hole, of Bernstein Shur, has been the practicing town attorney for Paris, and is so currently. There have been words of open antagonism toward Atty. Hole from this selectman . This selectman also seems to have brought the appearance of a directive energy to the board re. the current law suit, Town of Paris vs. Jackson, with a general aura of "I know what's best here." Do we have a battle of the attorneys? Of ego? Never mind the facts? Or the people?

In addressing the town manager at meetings, when this selectman uses phrases like "You and I have talked about this, and..." are frequently folded in, and the manager responds "Yes, we talked about this...." , one cannot help but wonder just what was discussed? And how often does this go on? Do we have a self-appointed advisor here?

This particular selectman has not hesitated to point out the importance of appearance in the behavior of public officials to his selectboard peers....

We do need 2 capable and willing Paris citizens to fill 2 seats on the Paris selectboard. We will be grateful for their time, their expertise, their willingness to listen. It is important to hold all of our elected officials to the highest standard we can.

News made good

2010-06-04T05:52:00.000-07:00

D. Langeveld's 6-4-10 article in the Sun Journal, "Paris Candidates Focus on Finance," offers some good information for the local election in Paris Tuesday June 8th.

It is critical that Paris voters not take the privilege of voting for granted. If nothing else, this last year in Paris has brought home the need for close observation - even intervention - by voters, to monitor private agendas.

Private agendas, personal grudges, opportunities for grand standing, and indulging in power trips are the alter egos of:
*awareness of, interest in, and understanding of public concern;
*continuing, thorough examination of accurate facts;
*honest, open discourse;
*a good, responsible judgment process that reflects not just the individuals on the selectboard, but the wishes of the people who voted them into office.

It is only with the constant scrutiny of voters that this sometimes delicate balance can be kept in check.

This is a small town; elected officials and those they represent, alike, all walk the same streets, use the same municipal resources, breathe the same air. We do not expect to be told what is good for us and therefor what we should do - and, in fact, what they have decided they are going to do for us.

Rather, we expect our elected officials to remember we are a team. We are responsible for telling them what we think and supporting them - or not; and they are responsible to us, and need to listen.

Remember to vote on Tuesday June 8. Bring your friends. Never mind that some local choices are uncontested - candidates need to be aware of what voters think. Tell them.

Are we voting?

2010-06-03T14:21:00.000-07:00

Has Tuesday's local election been cancelled in Paris for lack of interest?

Signs everywhere; fallen down in some places and piled up on the ground, there are so many. State and county candidates, these are.

Things happening re. the ballots in Oxford; Norway; Harrison.

Now, in Paris, except for a single Paris Utility District candidate ad in a local paper, as of today, not a peep.

Nothing about absentee ballots - or an election in 4 days - advertised anywhere outside on the grounds of the Paris town office.

Two candidates for Paris selectmen, and no one campaigning - or even talking - anywhere...because no competition makes victory a matter of fact, you say? So why bother? The public will take what they get and like it - or not - you say?

Who needs a mandate when one can just take the job by default and then proceed as if one does have a mandate.....

But to not even pretend an interest in getting people out to vote? To extend an invitation? To show a modicum of interest in the voters themselves?

For more information please see TPR posting of May 19.

And they met...

2010-05-24T21:59:00.000-07:00

...the 10 or so voters of Paris, along with the selectboard, town manager, finance officer, and 3 members of the press. Monday night's selectboard carried out the agenda posted Friday evening, with some interesting extensions.

Points to consider:
*Town manager's request for medical leave. Currently out of sick leave, advance sick leave was granted the manager with a vote of 3-1. Should one assume there will be similar compassion when others on the town payroll need assistance?

*Fire Department. No question that protection by qualified personnel is a high priority. The entire board was in accord on this topic. Chief Frost is looking everywhere for financial support. He is being wise and careful, however, about moving too fast and getting on a track that moves too fast to be well planned. Go chief Frost!

* Warrant for the June 12th annual town meeting. More complicated.
There are 33 items on the warrant. And then there was the 34th item of when a newly elected town official actually takes office.

[editor's note: The Paris Reporter is not a legal entity, nor does it have a stake in the outcome of what has become a personal debate for many on the issue - not to mention that this specific point is part of the current litigation in the Rule 80B complaint, Jackson vs. the Town of Paris.]

There is state law that prescribes when a newly elected official takes office: 30-A MRSA Sec.2526.

There is also Article 7 in the Town of Paris annual town meeting warrant of June 1999 that speaks to that same issue. Paris voters in 1999 were cognizant of the fact the budget calendar is July 1 - June 30; they chose to vote the term of office for officials to be concurrent with the budget year. And, according to the second half of 30-A MRSA 2526, until the legislative body of the town changes that decision, the actual date voted in 1999 for a newly elected official to take office stands.

Five years after that 1999 vote, Paris voters unofficially changed the date officials took office, making the date concurrent with the annual town meeting just after the election in June. (See link below.)

There is strong feeling among certain individuals that the last few years (2005 - 2009) of "past practice" - starting official terms at the date of town meeting - should set the date an elected official takes office, despite the 1999 vote.

There is equally strong feeling among others that there was a legal vote - that can only be changed by the legislative body - to follow the wording of the vote, and "start July 1."

Tonight's comments on the board ran from:
"We should not cherry pick [what rules we follow]...." to "The 1999 ordinance is null and void...."

[editor's note: the 1999 warrant article was simply a procedural question to the voters. Not an ordinance. However, it carries the weight of law.]

One member of the current Paris selectboard is the former attorney for the town of Paris. While one can not easily shed one's hat of a former life, it is a complex and highly delicate matter for that individual to be aware of the hat he was wearing when elected, and avoid any appearance of prejudicial bias. Paris pays a separate attorney to advise this town, its employees, and its selectboard.

The issue of term of office is germane to the current lawsuit; but it is also, as Chairman Glover pointed out, an issue we need to settle, for the short term, for our upcoming June election. It is appropriate that a decision be made for practical purposes, aside from any legal issues.

There was no actual vote on the question of the terms for officials elected in the June 2010 election. However, after discussion, with 3 board members wishing to keep the term at the "past practice" of 2005-2009, and one member adhering to the intent of the original vote and practice of 1999-2004, it was the wish of the board that the term for newly elected officials would begin their term of office at the annual town meeting right after the June election.

However, the legal issues are also still relevant. Check this link to TPR's July 24, 2009 posting. The article itself is about the current lawsuit, but also includes: (1) the June 1999 Article 7 of the annual town meeting warrant; (2) 6-21-05 letter from Bruce Hanson to the town of Paris re. his term of office as selectman; (3) 6-27-05 letter from the law firm of Kurtz & Perry to the Town of Paris re. Hanson's letter; (4)30-A MRSA 2526.

And one more thing:

"I'd like to act as the citizens want; people want 5 people on the board."

"The people of the Town of Paris want...."

"The people of Paris want us to...."

This politician-speak can stop any time. Is there a document with signatures out there somewhere saying there is agreement on some certain point? How do they know what we think? Has anyone seen any of our selectmen tramping up and down the streets with a clipboard recently?

It's OK if you [select board members]say you think something is a good idea. It's even better if you say you are going to ask us what we think. But it is just not OK to say you know what we think just to make your point sound better.

Monday next

2010-05-21T16:49:00.000-07:00

Paris selectboard will meet this coming Monday, May 24, at 7 pm in the town office.

Agenda linked here. A few items look comment-worthy.....

Ballots ready

2010-05-19T12:10:00.000-07:00

The June 8th referendum has several ballots, all available now for absentee voting:

(1) Party primary election ballots for state and county offices;
(2) Five state referendum questions;
(3) One Oxford County referendum question;
(4) Annual Town Meeting Ballot for Paris.

Voting is always necessary, even if a candidate is uncontested - while not conveying a mandate, it does say we approve.

Keep asking

2010-05-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

The special selectboard meeting cum lawyer Thursday 5-13-10 was the latest municipal machine activity. One waits for the next thing...explanations, details, a developmental continuance, perhaps. But, in lieu of such, one is left with only the obvious: more questions.

What was the topic, again? Coming up with a coherent plan for dealing with a rather major lawsuit? One poised to split the town... Looking for a way to head off temper tantrums from an individual board member who is struggling to get the upper hand? Finding a way to thwart any real responsibility for having to face a bad situation gone worse because of action long overdue?

If there are questions to be asked about a lawsuit, what prohibited them from being asked back when things were too hard and too unmanageable and too threatening? Because now, the questions have become irrelevant and unanswerable. The questions are no longer how can we right the wrong, or how can we manage the wrong, or even how do we survive the wrong?

The question now has been dehumanized to the point of how do we cover up the wrong, pay off any individual bleating about being wronged, and get back to the "to-do list" of 4 individuals poised to run this town? Are we to understand, then, that this town is to be about things -dollars, items; not people? Not about principle, values, things fought for by more voters than have ever fought for things in this town for a long time? Is that the message for voters?

While we're asking, lets throw out a question about the local election coming up 3 weeks from tomorrow (June 8). Three Weeks. Any campaigning going on? Two selectboard seats open; a seat on PUD, and a school board seat. Have we regressed, here? This is the town who fought through 5 referendums in 5 months; individuals - and items - on ballots that threatened to change the way Paris operates. Are these folks running for office thinking people don't know the score?

Do we have individuals running for office now who think voters don't know that an individual running unopposed does not have a mandate? Do the individuals themselves know that? This is not Paris of 5 years ago. This is now. Voters are no longer keen on tantrums and posturing, or empty words with empty smiles and nice teeth.

Questions. With no real accomplishments, there is no real information (lest someone thinks words are going to do the trick...).

Ask. Ask these questions. The Paris Reporter will.

Monday's meeting, continued

2010-05-11T12:18:00.000-07:00

The actual agenda items were few; as the previous post mentioned, the discussions themselves took the time.

The item of the FEMA grant for Paris Fire Department has been well covered in the Sun Journal "Paris Selectmen Approve Fire Tanker", 5-11-10. A safely equipped and well-manned fire department, as well as the demands and cost for such, continue to be a priority concern for all Paris citizens. Last night's 35-minute-plus discussion - including board members, Chief Brad Frost, and citizens - was no exception.

Other issues, not on the agenda... that emerged:

*Board of Selectmen Priority List
This is the product of the April 12 selectmen's workshop - held after the regular board meeting that night - 10 items the four agreed to include on a list of things for the town to get on a to-do list, and then to prioritize. Good ideas, by and large. Two more ideas were added during the second after-meeting session tonight.

During citizen comments several citizens expressed an interest in having additional citizen input, as well, in such an endeavor. While the workshop structure is just for selectmen to talk together, citizens were allowed to listen.

It is to be hoped that the fine line between trying to be inclusive and having endless debate, on the one hand, and "we know what's best for you," on the other, can be navigated. While it is realistic and valuable for a board to have their own work time, uninterrupted, this town has a history of people sometimes feeling their frustrations were ignored and that resulting dilemma getting way out of hand.

*Sensitive Information
There was the matter of how information, some of it sensitive, is passed along from town Atty. Hole to the individual selectmen in the current lawsuit of former town mgr. S. Jackson.

It was decided that any emails from his office would continue to be fielded through the town office. It is unfortunate that emails - that are all public information - and /or faxes are used, when US mail would be more secure, although Town Mgr. Tarr said he didn't believe Atty. Hole would be likely to send sensitive information via email. There was no discussion of the protocol for phone calls.

Many people will surely do their best. However, during the tenure of another board not so long ago, some legal information somehow did not make it to the intended parties. Sometimes legal information cannot help but be in one party's interest and not in another's.... In the case of the specific information referred to above "during the tenure of another board," that information could have been instrumental in preventing the magnitude of what this town currently faces.

Any process for handling the transmission of sensitive material - for this lawsuit or anything else in the course of transacting this town's business - would usually, at the direction of the entire board, be via the town manager. Town Mgr. Tarr requested instructions for this matter last night.

There would most certainly not be a role for any private counseling by any other individual, no matter how extensive that individual's background might be. We have a paid attorney, and access to MMA resources; that is the expected route for our legal advice. This town has had enough of individuals acting on behalf of when that really meant in spite of.

*Special Selectboard Meeting
On Thursday 5-13-10 at 5 pm, this selectboard will meet with Atty. Hole to discuss the upcoming mediation process in the Jackson 80B Complaint.

The meeting, Ch. Glover said, will include only the one item, and, though the public may attend, will be held primarily in executive session.

Although The Paris Reporter vigorously supports questioning just about everything, it is important to point out that if this session is for our selectboard to learn about the protocol for the up-coming mediation process, then any public time taken up with questions should be used sparingly.

Any questions asked to gain information that the public might be entitled to - during the public time just prior to the executive session - can easily be done, if necessary, without grandstanding or posturing on the part of any individual. Then the executive session can be devoted to business. [Unlike the April 20 meeting with the lawyer that turned into a double expense because other items were deposited on the agenda before an executive session and Atty. Hole had to sit there and wait; and be paid.]

Because, #1, we are paying Atty. Hole for every minute of his time, and there is hue and cry a-plenty about the use of tax payers' money; and, #2, this town is in serious need of concrete information from the informed parties actively involved in handling this case, and our elected officials need to ask for and listen to directions from the lawyer this town hired to handle this case.

The Rebuilding

2010-05-10T20:18:00.000-07:00

9:30 pm. Monday.

Selectboard met tonight. Short agenda....long meeting. Citizens had thoughts, and the chairman tried to listen when it came time that the citizens could speak.

And it went on too long. About 26 citizens attended, and 2 reporters. By 9 o'clock about 10 people were left. Those who left were tired and tired out. They felt not necessary.

This town has been in crisis for months and months. Now we have an opportunity to be out of crisis. We have elected individuals who are trying to make a difference in this town. They haven't learned that the voters are their best support. Just like we voters haven't become convinced that our elected officials and those they have hired are our best support.

We are all in evolution. We question motives and we question competence and we question private agendas and we question allegiance.

We are all going to make mistakes. We have not yet learned how to listen to each other.

Our transition board has individuals who seem determined to give this town their best; but what we have not discovered from each other is how we find what is best in each other. We the voters, the ones who pay the salary, the pocket cash, and the very reason they exist; and they, the ones who do on our behalf, who have their hands on the wheel of this great bus that is careening down the highway.

This is a small town. We are all of a fabric. It is dangerous to think otherwise. There are going to be choices.

Selectboard meeting 5-10-2010

2010-05-10T06:57:00.000-07:00

Paris' selectboard meets 5-10-2010 at the town office, 7:00 p.m. Agenda here.

Please come to watch, listen and participate.

Question, always question...

2010-05-07T07:48:00.000-07:00

There is no denying that money is tight. It is ludicrous to believe people don't understand that. Better - and thorough - planning is always important to keep individuals, families, and towns fiscally sound. Questions should always be asked about spending.

In fact, questions should be asked about most everything.

Mediation - in this current lawsuit that makes everybody's jaw tighten: will the particular mediator selected work for free? Don't the lawyers who accompany whoever goes into the mediation session(s) have to be paid? Is this whole mediation process cost-free, just to help parties who aren't able to negotiate on their own? Do you think?

And if mediation doesn't work...and court comes anyway, will that come at a reduced rate because Paris really didn't mean to get this far down the road with such bad planning?

And what was wrong with our (Paris' selectboard on the town's behalf) "negotiating" that we ended up with mediation - one tiny step away from the court room....? Were the 2 meetings (March 16th and April 20) with the lawyer actually part of a negotiation process with the other party? Or just information exchanging and loud proclamations within the board, with our paid lawyer as audience?

Why couldn't this board negotiate? Do we have a whole board-full of people who are digging in their heels, or just a minority?

Do we have board members who think this is only about money? If so, why haven't other options been looked at that might have stopped this escalating scenario?

Are there actually individuals on our selectboard that believe this lawsuit is only about money? Are there really individuals on our board who are willing to say, right out loud, to the citizens of this town, as well as to the other party:
"There was no wrong done on June 22, 2009. I, an elected official of the town of Paris, take no responsibility for not having fought as hard as perhaps I could have. The citizens in this town have nothing to complain about. We [the speakers] are blameless. This is all your fault [speaking to the other party] for getting yourself fired and putting us now in this awkward position."

Lines have been drawn

2010-05-05T05:59:00.000-07:00

..."parties may be too far apart to settle the matter themselves."... (Sun Journal, "Mediator approved for Jackson Lawsuit", 5-05-10).

Yes. So it would seem.

It's all about the cost of things, right? Maybe. Three former Paris selectmen...who are no longer individuals held in the highest of esteem by the voting majority... certainly made the case for that.

"We have to protect the citizens of this town...." (overheard from the front table during the 4-11-10 selectboard meeting). Why, yes.....yes, of course... the citizens of this town certainly don't have any sense of their own, now, do they?

These citizens, at least the voting majority who showed up at the polls, didn't - pretty much all by themselves - slog through the last 10 months, get themselves to the polls 5 times in 5 months, recall 2 selectboard members, save 2 other selectboard members, who, caught in the same bitter trap that caught the former town manager, would otherwise have been removed as well. Not to mention a good portion of these citizens getting themselves out that last time in March to elect 2 new selectboard members.

And this town is not in danger of being divided - again. There is no need, nor has there ever been, any healing required. There is widespread trust in the elected officials representing us on the selectboard. All town employees are feeling very supported. There is high confidence in how our municipal operation is currently being run. There is not a power hungry individual anywhere.

And "....we are in negotiations." (the chairman, 4-11-10).

Because negotiating, all along the way of this whole sorry situation that had to result in a lawsuit - as opposed to heads in the sand and then finally loud saber rattling and pronouncements, when push came to shove - would be the way of wise rulers.

Pick the true statement you like best from the list above.

At the meeting Monday....

2010-04-27T11:55:00.000-07:00

...a few (19) citizens; 3 press; 4 selectboard members; one town manager; one town clerk.

A great deal of discussion. Some decisions.

* Acceptance of a $200 gift to Paris Police Department in appreciation from Dr. John Knight;
*Announcement of the removal of an item currently included on the proposed 2010-11 budget, making the total expenditures suddenly $34,712.29 less; (some discussion, and a decision, in an apparent response to a fair amount of homework on the part of several people);

[editor's note: This portion of the TIF payment amount was listed in with the proposed 2010-11 budget figures and did not need to be, according to state revenue service information. The proposed figures on Paris' 2010-11 budget will be changed, with this figure appearing only on the page where the mil rate is calculated - so the amount will not be considered twice.]

*NPSW appointments will be made before long - 3 from Paris, 4 from Norway - to include Paris and Norway town managers as voting members (some discussion);
*Street sweeper purchase - (much, much, much discussion) Not clear what the new - or even the old - sweeper's status is to be....
*Oxford Street is in sorry shape. Everybody agrees. Money will simply have to be spent there.
*New Planning board member - G. Coffren (decision)
*Unfreeze Capital Improvement Accounts - frozen in January, so that if we ran short we wouldn't have spent everything away (discussion - within board members - on understanding all that, and finally a decision);
*Official wording discussion for official ordinance format for official vote in June (decision);
*Who will Town Report be dedicated to this June? [editor's note: Guess this means the paper booklet report, not the computerized scenario in the works pretty soon for Paris' computer savvy minority... ]
*Multiple, varied, and earnest comments from 10 or 11 of the 19 individuals attending:
(1) vandalism and posting of land possibilities in High Street gravel pit; (2) need for allowing an opportunity for citizens to speak in selectboard meetings, including Specially Called Meetings, any time an item affecting the public is on the agenda; (3) need for looking at ways to save the town money, including the sharing of equipment between towns; (4) the need for complete detailed information to be brought to the selectboard by the town manager any time they are expected to vote on an issue.

*As for the executive session w/ town atty. Hole on 4-20-10, Chairman Glover announced that "We are still in negotiations, so we have nothing to report and there is nothing to make a decision on.," and said they expect to hear from Atty. B. Dench later this week. The board will meet and discuss at a special meeting or at the next regular meeting 5-10-10. "This board... asked for an update on a settlement which we received and heard at the last special meeting with Geoff [3-18-10] and essentially counter-offered"[editor's note: It is not clear when a counter-offer was made, and what "essentially" means. A formal, written counter offer, one would expect, would elicit some response other than nothing from the side with the complaint. It is also not clear whether a back and forth conversation is happening at all. And if that's true, where is the breakdown?]

On Monday the 26th

2010-04-25T15:20:00.000-07:00

Monday 4-26-10 Paris Selectboard will meet at 7 PM. Please call the town office for the location of the meeting. The agenda is posted here.

The item of "Selectmen's comments," is now a consistent feature listed at the end of each agenda, and evidently covers most anything - somewhere in the vicinity between controversial, random, and currently relevant.

Curiously missing, unless it may have fallen into that last item, is any item listed relevant to Town Atty. Hole's attendance at a special selectboard meeting Tuesday 4-20-10, that 2 1/2 hour, $625 visit, $250 of which turned out to be not the executive session to discuss with the board the Jackson 80B Complaint..

[editor's note: see the previous posting, for 4-22-10, The real question waiting to be answered.]

Just before the start of the executive session Tuesday, Ch. Glover said to the tiny public audience in attendance that any results would be made known to a larger audience in attendance at Monday's regular board meeting; that any decision would be made in public at that time.

If there is no mention of the law suit Monday night (which, as was noted in the press a few weeks ago, had an extension until April 20 to settle out of court, thus the meeting with Atty. Hole), would we assume there is nothing to report? That nothing was discussed or accomplished and nothing is happening, and nothing is going to happen and...if everyone will just stop asking, the whole business will evaporate and it will be as if 600 people were never deeply outraged on June 22 and why don't we just forget this whole last 10 months and pretend this is about somebody else?

We the people get the attorney-client privilege standard, and we also get the strategy that the selectboard could choose, for a period of time, not to disclose certain things in a legally sensitive situation. We have become quite educated in what we cannot be told.

But what our elected officials do not seem to get is that we - many more of us than they are hoping - do not forget. There is not a rug massive enough to sweep this under. Tell us something. This is our town, too. How this is resolved will affect all of us, money aside.

And rest assured that, just as at the federal and state level, our local politicians will need to disclose their voting record and reasons for doing so at some point. Or their lack of doing so, if, in this case, no decision is made and things just fall through everybody's fingers. Government by default.

The real question waiting to be answered

2010-04-22T16:52:00.000-07:00

This Monday 4-26-10 at 7 pm Paris selectboard will meet. Town office? Fire station? Better call to verify. For several months now, selectboard meetings have been held at the fire station, even though the audiences have become smaller and smaller since March; meetings have been long and uneventful.

One would almost think it's safe to go back in the water....no worries, no controversy, no crisis to bring the numbers out to watch.

Like the still calm sheen of the lake surface. Not a ripple...anywhere... it would seem....

A new board, a different mix of people, a changing of the guard that involves learning the ropes for some, and relearning the ropes, for others. A time of adjusting and re-adjusting how one feels about what people think; of discovering who to trust and who to question.

This adjustment period also brings out the naysayers - who want to capitalize on finally having someone to harangue; the hopeful - who are easily disillusioned by perceived missteps; and individuals who have their own agenda, and wish to scout out a source to get them what they want.

But the waters will roll and ripple, and eventually settle down, and the matter of getting this town going again must prevail. Or else the struggle of the last 10 months will have taught us nothing.

At Monday's meeting, a question waiting to be answered might be:

When the hue and cry is how bare the coffers of Paris are about to be any minute, what do you have to tell us to justify bringing town Atty. Hole up from Portland last Tuesday for 2 1/2 hours, or longer, at $250 an hour, to sit through a 60 minute discussion - plus or minus - that Chairman Glover finally agreed to rearrange the schedule for if it only lasted 15 minutes?
[editor's note: the executive session was originally scheduled first (so Atty. Hole could leave and the meeting continue without him), the revisited item, the purchase of a sidewalk sweeper, second.]

The use of Atty. Hole's time covered more than the executive session. His expensive time was extended by listening to - and ultimately volunteering an opinion on - the heated discussion of whether proper procedure had been followed in having a prior item on an earlier selectboard agenda reopened. Fingers were pointed angrily; and outside, on the streets of Paris, fingers continued - and still continue - to point, and tongues wagged - and continue to wag - passing on misinformed rumors.

Was this particular extra $250 well spent? Useful to the citizens of Paris? (OK if useful; but, not OK if things simply escalated because of a preplanned, not-totally-factual presentation that was based on misinformation and misinterpretation. )

The integrity of the entire board was impugned by this misinformation. It is good to question; to ask for clarity. It is pointless and unprofessional to attack based only on hearsay and innuendo.

The tiny segment of voters present noticed.

Atty. Hole was brought up to consider, with our 4 selectmen, any possible settlement out of court for the Jackson Rule 80 B appeal. Or not.

This is what we are really waiting to hear about Monday night.

[edtior's note: possibly NPCTV may rebroadast the segment of Tuesday's session on the item of the sweeper if they can find a spot before Monday. The broadcast time will be posted here if so.]

The task before the current selectboard....

2010-04-20T20:58:00.000-07:00

...was to meet with Town Atty. Geoff Hole tonight and consider an offer for settlement out of court for an appeal on behalf of former town manager Sharon Jackson. The meeting, with all 4 selectpersons, took place in executive session, 1 1/2 hours worth.

There was a small representation of the public present at the adjournment, but there was no further word to the public at this time. Ch. Glover had already said, before the start of the executive session, that any decision would be made official the following Monday, April 26, when the selectboard would vote in public at their regularly scheduled meeting.

_________________________________________________

The taking of another look

The other item on tonight's agenda was reopening the discussion on the need for replacing Paris' Street Sweeper. [editor's note: the vote 4-12 on the item was a 2-2- vote, and resulted in the item not being replaced.]

Before the discussion on the sweeper could begin, there was strong concern expressed in one quarter about there having been collusion, instigated by board Member A (who asked for the item to be reconsidered).

Member A had called board Member B (who had made the original motion for the vote at the last meeting) and asked Member B's agreement in having the item revisited. The strong concern expressed was that something had been clandestinely pre-arranged, and hadn't this town had enough of that in the last months; that one board member should not talk to another board member at anytime other than a public board meeting. *See editor's note below.

Turns out that Member A was following procedure as recommended by the board chairman - and it was indeed the correct procedure. There was no pitch made, or vote prearranged; only the agreement to revisit the topic, in order to gather further information.

Further information from Paris Highway Forman Danforth, as well as Town Mgr. Tarr, brought out more details reinforcing the request behind the revisiting - that there was indeed a health hazard to the operator of the current machine because of the poor condition of the machine. The new vote tonight was 3-1 to replace the machine, using FEMA money in the highway department's budget that was designated a couple of years ago for roads.

*[editor's note: Atty. Hole happened to be present during all of the above discussion, and interjected that "Two board members may talk; 3 cannot talk and form a consensus." He went on to point out that ethics, as well, are a matter to be considered in all interactions between board members; transparency is more than just legality.

This town has had it's own recent education on the issue of clandestine activity.

Case in point: Two selectmen sitting in a local restaurant having lunch with a guy who in a few days turns up as the new interim town manager in a town where the regular town manager has just been summarily fired = suspiciously like collusion;

Seems pretty clear that

Case in point #2: One select person calling another select person to see if the other thought an item could go on the agenda = no collusion.]

Unfinished

2010-04-19T15:24:00.000-07:00

The previous posting (below) touched on endings and beginnings, in Paris, for good or for bad. If you haven't read it, take time to - it is a good little thought-provoker.

Two items are listed as "unfinished": the budget process, and the 80-B Appeal.

Budget Process: There is always an opportunity, up until an actual vote is taken at the annual town meeting in June, to add, subtract, or discuss the budget - or any budget item - even if approved by the selectmen to date. Even on the date of the vote, up until that vote, an item can be discussed and an amendment created; and that amendment would also go to a vote.

So. Regarding the 2010-11 budget that was approved by the selectmen 4-12-10: on the agenda of the special selectmen's meeting to be held tomorrow 4-20-10, besides the executive session that was the reason for the meeting in the first place, there will be at least one additional item. There will be another look taken at the concern of Paris Highway Dept. re. their street sweeper [the machine that vacuums up all the winter's dirt and sand.]

The request to take another look at the item - a new street sweeper - did not come from the Highway Dept.; it came from a select board member who wanted to have a continued discussion on the item to explore matters more thoroughly. The 4-12-10, 2-2 vote resulted in no new sweeper.

This process of taking another look is in keeping with the bylaws of the board and the budget process. Voters having an interest about the need or cost for such an item - or not - (approximately $48,000, money out of the existing budget), are encouraged to attend Tuesday's meeting at the town office that begins at 5:30 PM. Be aware that any item for discussion would take place after the executive session.

The 80-B Appeal: The reason our selectboard will be meeting with town attorney Geoffrey Hole at this particular point and time will be, finally, once and for all, to consider an offer for an out of court settlement of an appeal on behalf of former Paris Town Manager Sharon Jackson - who was fired 2 days short of 10 months ago in a vengeful act that left the town stunned.

Hundreds of hours of citizen battles to recover lost ground, two recalled selectmen, an interim town manager of questionable competence, a full-time replacement town manager, 3 settlement offers (one not acknowledged, one turned down), and many, many black moments later; the time has come for this community to fish or cut bait.

This site has posted item after item, all the way back to July 2009, on the width and breadth of effect on the town of Paris from the events of June 22, 2009. The citizens and voters of this town have made their thoughts known time after time: from the 611 who published a letter in the papers July 9, to the energy generated in the efforts to push through the recall ordinance, and its final outcome in the February recall elections.

The task before the current selectboard is to weigh the facts, the figures, and the responsibilities. It is not enough just to bring this sorry episode in Paris' history to an end, however; the outcome of this negotiation [this will be the last chance] must allow all parties involved to live with the decisions they have made; to be able to move on to the next thing - not being afraid, hesitant, unable, or unwilling to look back.

Endings and Beginnings

2010-04-16T14:19:00.000-07:00

Things are changing in the landscape - it's greener, brighter, softer looking. Winter has officially ended and spring has actually begun and is on track.

The ending of a thing, the beginning of the next thing that either replaces or continues. So, too, for Paris. For good or for bad.

Norway Paris Solid Waste - a topic of so much conflict and ill feelings and concerns about management. The existing board of directors dissolved; questions for how best to facilitate a need that must be met, somehow.

An ending.

Wednesday the 14th Norway and Paris selectboards met together, with the respective town managers. To guarantee no lapse in serving the community, a board of directors will be reconstituted for NPSW, for now; options and ideas will be considered and studied for the future.

A beginning.

The Jackson Rule 80-B Appeal - stemming from a situation that had no good beginning, and so far has hardly even a middle; a sad gathering of mostly endings, that feel, in general, totally incomplete.

Almost no one has heard - or looked at - a complete story from start to finish. The 80-B Appeal is only part of the story. There is the "why?" of it; and there is the "who-is-this-person-anyway?" of it.

This coming Tuesday, April 20, in an executive session at the Paris Town Office, the Paris selectboard will meet with Paris Town Atty. Geoff Hole to discuss the most recent offer for settlement out of court. [Editor's note: This will be the 3rd offer. One came , by phone, in October and was not passed on. Another came in December and was rejected 3-2 by selectboard. This same offer was discussed again by the current selectboard, in March, and not accepted as offered. A final offer for settlement will come on the 20th.]

This Tuesday has the potential for at least a loosely acceptable middle and end, to a festering situation of madness and vendetta that erupted in June 2009, and didn't stop then.

Unfinished. Needing an established beginning - also a middle.

The Paris Town Budget Process - a recurring process that becomes solid ground in June at Town Meeting. The budget committee's job was to consider and approve the figures brought to them by the town manager, whose figures come, by and large, from the various department heads and are then fit into the manager's framework. Their hearing was April 8. This work in progress was passed on to the selectboard, and was approved April 12..

Some new faces in the process this time, and though everyone worked diligently, the firm guidance and experience of former chair Forrie Everett (recently resigned and off to Florida) was missed.

Unfinished. The ending - or official continuance - comes in June when Paris citizens vote on the carefully prepared budget for the following year.

A Reminder - and Wondering....

2010-04-11T15:45:00.000-07:00

There will be a Paris Selectboard meeting tomorrow, Monday 4-12-10 at 7 pm. A fairly long agenda, many items merely perfunctory, one or two somewhat more lengthy.

A puzzling item, however. Since March 11, there has been an addition at - or after - the end of the agendas, "Selectmen Requests." Not clear why this needs to be noted separately. Our elected officials need separate space on the agenda? Different attention comes thereby?

There is, no doubt, a logical explanation.

But one cannot help but wonder why there would be a request for a workshop, following the adjournment of the meeting. Surely our selectboard - or whoever puts together this agenda - knows that all meetings and transactions are public - unless there is a legal issue to be discussed, in private, with our town attorney present.

Goals and objectives are listed as the topic for the workshop. It is a good and reasonable thing for our new selectboard to figure out how they should function and what some upcoming issues might be. And an equally good thing for Paris citizens to be aware of such deliberations. Also legally accurate.

There have been smatterings of thoughts mentioned in various places about a time of visioning and planning ahead on a wide canvas for Paris.

If this workshop session turns out to be more than just a look at how the selectboard works, and goes on to consider how the town itself could work, this might be a good thing... but would it be a good thing now?

Now, when this town is still waiting to see if the selectboard is trustworthy this time around? Now, when we are waiting to see if this management is capable? Now, when we are waiting to see if we have all the betrayed, broken, thrown away pieces retrieved and repaired?

Surely our elected officials know the time is not right for this kind of action...for any looking way down the road before we get ourselves squared away? Of course. Of course they do. They would be in touch with what people are thinking. Of course they would.

This particular workshop appears to be scheduled right after the adjournment of Monday night's meeting. But, if he or she chooses, any citizen can stay and watch? Right?

Agenda for 4-12-10

2010-04-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

Monday April 12 Paris Selectmen will meet at 7 pm at Paris Fire Station. Agenda posted here.

Figures and Thoughts

2010-04-08T19:47:00.000-07:00

Tonight Paris' Budget Committee held a public hearing at the end of their several week preparation process for the town's annual budget. A verbal summary [see Sun Journal 4-7-10 "Hearing set for Paris budget"] was presented by Town Manager Phil Tarr, followed by additional remarks by committee chair Vic Hodgkins. The actual budget now goes on to the selectboard, where it will be formally approved and then printed in the annual report for the voters in June. Possibly a copy of the budget might be available before that; a call to the town office would confirm that.

The design of much of the budget committee's work is quite black and white: the overseeing of a compilation of budget figures put together by the town manager to operate the town for another year. It is preceeded and facilitated by several weeks of gathering and laying out information by the financial officer and municipal department heads; typing and retyping by staff, and then followed by several more weeks of discussion and questions by the committee.

Most of us as tax payers can only tread water in the manner of keeping up. We can only be trusting - and grateful.

The public audience tonight was tiny - probably to be expected since the hearing was simply perfunctory.

But: some un-black-and-white comments managed to emerge.

Despite the fact that it is not in the job description of the budget committee's role, after the financial presentation, the topic of The Big Picture suddenly materialized in the room. Not the time, you sticklers for detail say? OK....so when?

The question came in the context of ever increasing expenses, with a limited number of property owners paying the bill out of income that cannot be predicted to rise at the same rate as those expenses.

For example, this year's budget is 2.6% higher than last year's, and this upward trend will most likely continue. Selectman Skip Herrick estimated that as few as 50% of the people in town pay the taxes for the town. Is this a dependable source for the long run?

After pointing out that, over the last 10 years, budgets - and taxes - have increased 55%, and adding his concern about the years ahead, Selectman Ted Kurtz asked a thought-provoking question : "My question is directed toward, not the expense side, but the supply side; where the money's coming from. I'm just interested in to what extent the budget committee's work includes an assessment of that factor."

If assessing the source of the income to be budgeted is not in the purview of this committee, in whose purview is it? And when would such a discussion take place? A whole lot of Paris tax payers would want to be part of that discussion.

Update NPSW

2010-04-05T07:57:00.001-07:00

The joint meeting of the selectboards of Norway and Paris -referred to in the posting below under In the very near future - will be held Wednesday, April 14, 7pm at the Norway town office.

Life Without the Flames of Crisis

2010-04-04T17:37:00.000-07:00

In the sleepy, peaceful town of Paris, on a bright and sunny spring day, who would have a care?

Well it was indeed a fine spring day on Sunday, but there are still plenty of folks in this town who are anything but sleepy. We have learned the hard way, that, always, there need to be some who remain watchful. In fact, the more who watch, the better.

Coming up this week
Thursday 4-8-10, 7PM, the budget committee presents their work product to the public at an open hearing on the budget that will go before voters at the annual town meeting in June. (location? perhaps the town office? call to be sure.)

Imminently
A response to the Jackson Rule 8O B Complaint.

In the very near future
A joint response by selectboards from Norway and Paris to the future of Norway Paris Solid Waste. A meeting has been called for, and will be scheduled shortly. The court action last Thursday was one item dealt with; but solid waste disposal is a practical matter for all people in any town, and it doesn't deserve to be a political football.

So a firm, responsible, practical solution must be put in place.

Prospective candidates
Any Paris resident wishing to apply for any of the following vacancies that will appear on the ballot in June 2010 need to return their properly signed petitions to the town office by April 26:

*A 3 year term on Paris Utility District
*A term on SAD 17 school board
*Two 3 year term positions on Paris town selectboard.

Have you taken time to call and remind anyone about your thoughts on any of the items listed above?

In Court Today

2010-04-01T14:52:00.000-07:00

On the docket today at Oxford County Superior Court was a call to render a decision on 2 motions:

(1) For the plaintiffs, a preliminary injunction [to temporarily stop the clock, to undo what had been put in place] as a first step in reversing the recent decision of the towns of Norway and Paris regarding the operation of the appointed board of directors of Norway Paris Solid Waste;

(2) For the defendants, a request to dismiss the entire case on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no standing to appeal the towns' actions.
[see editor's note below re. "standing" ]

Atty. D. Hanley represented 2 individuals, Al Atkinson and Bruce Hanson, who are appealing the actions of Norway and Paris in rescinding the individuals' appointments, and those of 3 others, as directors on the board of Norway Paris Solid Waste.

Atty. R. Crawford represented Norway and Paris, the members of the corporation NPSW.

[editor's note - "standing":
In order for a party to establish "standing" before the court, that party would have had to go farther than merely complain and/or threaten loudly and often. The party would have to have taken formal steps to register complaints at appropriate points (e.g., in a publicized hearing on the topic). If these steps were not taken at the appropriate time, the party has no "standing" to take those steps later.]

In the court proceedings today, the judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The judge went on to say he would take under advisement [gather more information on] the arguments on both sides, about whether to dismiss the case entirely.

So, where are we?

2010-03-30T19:43:00.000-07:00

What are we waiting for? Is it time to be ok now? Do we know enough about anything to be secure yet about: a.) how this town is supposed to operate? and b.) is it operating that way?

We do know:
*The 2009 independent financial audit report - done in July 2009 - has come in, and, as of June 2009, Paris was in solid shape. The audit information is public information, available to look at and ask questions about if you call the town office ahead of time.

*That we will not have to take out a loan to operate this town after the end of March, contrary to a concerned statement made in early January by then newly appointed town manager P. Tarr.

*Where we stand, right now, on budget to actual expenses, because Treasurer Sharon Gendreau has those figures. This information is also public, and, if you call ahead, you can arrange a time to ask your own questions.

TPR learned today, for instance, that the budgeted amount for attorney fees, $8,000, is already over budget by 50%. We have paid, as of March 30, 2010, $12,070.87 ($1,000 of that for Mr. Hanley's repeat performance re. Town Farm Road...).

*That we are fortunate to have a dedicated and professional group of ladies working in that front office.

*That we have 4 selectmen who are going to try their hardest to get this town back on track, with our support.

But we have unfinished business, always with unknowns:
*How much will we lose from state revenue this coming year?
What will we have to cut further?

*The resolution of a law suit brought about by the vengeful firing of a former town manager;

* An interlocal agreement with Norway that must be reestablished - or a new plan made - to keep solid waste management in the hands of a board comprised of people who are responsive to the voters, and the law, instead of their own agenda.

We've started; and now we have to keep each other moving - complacency is such an easy chair to fall into when the maddening roar stops for a moment.

This town will only become what we want if we demand it be so, and then step up to help.

On the Docket for Thursday

2010-03-29T14:09:00.000-07:00

The issue of an injunction, to immediately overturn efforts of the boards of selectmen in the towns of Paris and Norway to deal with questionable management practices of the recently deposed board of Norway-Paris Solid Waste, will be addressed in Oxford Co. Superior Court on Thursday, April 1, at 12:00 noon.

All court proceedings are open to the public.

The request, filed by former NPSW lawyer Dana Hanley, is to immediately reinstate 5 of the deposed 7 NPSW board members, and to rescind all efforts to recognize the interlocal agreement passed by voters in both towns last June.

Once again voters, this time in Norway as well as Paris, are in danger of being sold short.

The wishes of the few, to control the choice of many. It depends, no doubt, on where one stands how the shape of that decision should play out..

Paris has become quite experienced in this kind of fight. It takes courage, backbone, and determination to follow through on clean up after being taken advantage of by the few.

It is a hard act, for the newly seated board of selectmen in Paris, to follow - betrayal by a previous board majority who tried to sell voters down the river.

It will take extra work on the part of this new board to garner the trust of citizens.

Not the few naysayers; but the majority, the citizens, the voters, the folks whose town Paris is.

On More Than One Level

2010-03-22T21:57:00.000-07:00

Up for the second time tonight as a new selectboard; a board of 4, since Selectman Young officially resigned tonight, and the board agreed not to hold a special election to fill the seat 6 weeks before the June town meeting.

New dynamics emerging on this board: interactive; information seeking; disagreeing with each other sometimes, without shutting the other down. And the doing of homework before class begins. Not to say that sometimes last minute items don't come up; but when a topic has been around a while - an ordinance, a law suit, a policy - it is refreshing to hear "I have been reading that statute..." from the front table. Even more refreshing would be "..and I have a copy with me."

Several items on the manager's report were actually main agenda items:

* We need a new street sweeper - case presented by Road Foreman Frank Danforth;

*The town is looking toward computerizing the town report to save paper and mailing. Do they really know how many non-computer folks there are in this town? Selectman Herrick made the point that come town meeting people will want to have something to hold in their hands to refer to; the speaker responded that that information would be on the computer and they could print it out..... missed the point....

Main agenda:

*Finally, just one year late, a hearing scheduled for the repairs to the petitioned replacement subdivision ordinance voted in last June. The impediments have been corrected, and these corrections will appear on the June 2010 warrant. For real.

*Our acting town clerk, Liz Knox, became official until June 30, when she will then be reappointed for another term. Paris is grateful for her continued dedication and efforts.

LEVEL TWO

Item 11. This law suit. Selectman Herrick said "This item is a very emotional topic for many people...many people." He went on to point out that it's necessary to separate the emotion from the cost of the law suit; that a decision needs to be made that is good for the town.

He is right on all counts, absolutely right. Working backwards on the points above, what works for the whole town must be the focus of our selectmen. And, of course, in order to run any machine, mechanical or municipal, the operators have to be able to manage the costs.

But, now, this emotional part. Why is this item so emotional? And, is emotion a nonessential component to the machine? Or is there more to it?

The situation has become so complex that it is almost impossible to boil things down to one, or even two, issue(s) of merit. We had a groundless firing; we had bullies; we had deceit after deceit. We - staff, elected officials, hired personnel, citizens - were all mocked, misled, lied to, cheated. People. All of us people. We were sold down the river. How does that feel?

And then a law suit. Wanted her job back. Couldn't get anyone to listen. Twice. How does that feel? Not only to the jobless person, but to us watching? Helpless and watching? Can you look away? Is the action right? wrong? How does that quandary itself feel?

Still the turmoil continued. Two of our elected officials trapped in the turmoil of the civil war brought on by the 3 other elected officials. How does that feel? To the 2? To the angry citizens watching?

Nine long, ridiculous, awful months.

We cannot disregard the emotion. It should not run the show; but it is part of who we are as people, all of us - elected officials, hired staff, citizens - our values, our vision, our hopes are built around our emotions.

And that includes our anger. We cannot sustain this anger any longer. Until there is a resolution to this lawsuit that has been blown into global proportions and looms over this town like a toxic cloud, we cannot rebuild, no matter how many street sweepers, fire tankers, and neat & tidy budgets we manage to whip up. Our former manager must be able to get on with her life - we owe her that - and we must be able to get on with Paris.

For Monday the 22nd

2010-03-19T14:49:00.000-07:00

Posted here is the agenda for the Paris selectboard meeting Monday March 22, 7 pm, at the Paris fire station.

Time's Up

2010-03-17T20:39:00.000-07:00

Paris voters cannot sit in on the executive session Thursday at 6 pm when our new selectboard gathers at a special meeting with town attorney Geoff Hole. But we all have a stake in that discussion, and we need to make our expectations clear.

We expect the facts to be presented to each of our elected officials (to date that has not happened), not only about the costs, but about the reasons and the methods and the options.

We expect there to be some resolution besides going to court because we're stuck with it.

We expect there to be good strong intelligent questions, serious discourse, and thinking outside of the box. We want a solution that deals with the rightness of things - not just a check list. We are sick of hearing about things that won't work - can't work - might not work.

We have had 9 months of things that did not work and we put a stop to that. We did - the 612 in the letter June 2009, the 354 for the recall ordinance petition in July, the 338 for individujal selectmen recalls in November , the 279 to request a notary public in December to set a town meeting, the 437 at the January town meeting, the 600 plus at 2 recall elections in February. We, the voters, worked together in our community and made that happen.

Our elected officials should look back at what we did, and recognize that it was the wrongness of things that motivated us. They need to keep that in mind as they work through their discussion Thursday night.

And, they need to consider:

No one asked for that firing in June, nor any of the poorly-orchestrated, costly, and destructive decisions made between then and the recall election in February. Our town almost capsized.

We can, all of us together, right the ship; but now we need the specific help of our elected officials in taking the appropriate, necessary legal steps to continue what we started.

The voters expect our selectboard to come up with a solution that will work for this town, that will make this town right again. Not right because it's quicker or cheaper or easier... but because it's right.

Better Late Than Never

2010-03-15T15:23:00.000-07:00

The Paris selectboard have scheduled a special meeting Thursday March 18 with town's attorney, Geoffrey Hole, to discuss matters relating to Sharon Jackson vs. The Town of Paris. The suit was filed in July 2009 - and to date, there has been no exchange of information, no discussions, no clear understanding of anything.

This is not just about money - that would be a gross oversimplification. This is about wrongness -all the way around. It is complex, sticky, and unpleasant; but not impossible to deal with. The people in this town are not timid by nature, and have shown a distinct bent this winter for setting things straight. However, not only do the town's people not know anything about the status of the suit, neither do our selectmen at this point.

The meeting will be held in closed session, most likely. However, the discussion at this meeting should provide the basis for answers we have been waiting for:

What happened? How did it get to this? What can we do now? How do we go on from here?

As a result of the 3-18-10 meeting, it is to be hoped that the next selectmen's meeting, Monday March 22, will include specific straightforward information on this topic. When citizens have been attending these meetings over a long period of time, they do not need to be read endless details and rules about procedure; they simply need to be given information about what's going on, as much as is possible without jeopardizing confidential proceedings.

Our selectmen need to know we are waiting for their response.

Openings

2010-03-15T15:19:00.000-07:00

Any Paris resident 18 years or older may pick up candidacy papers at the town office to run for the following seats: (election to be held in June)

one director, PUD;
two directors, SAD 17;
two selectmen, Town of Paris

Papers may be picked up beginning March 15, and must be returned by April 26. [FYI -Anything to do with candidacy forms is public information.]

They need to hear from us...

2010-03-12T10:37:00.000-08:00

Yes, there is still time to negotiate this lawsuit that nobody wants. It is not a done deal. The extension of the discovery deadline until April 10 (see the Motion and Order here) means depositions have yet to be taken from the 3 selectmen who initiated the firing of former Town Manager Jackson. The Sun Journal published an article 2-11-10 stating as much. The article stated 5 selectmen would be questioned, but that is not accurate; only the 3 would be deposed.

There must be negotiations. It is not necessary to throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do. An injustice has been done, to the former town manager, and to this town. Nobody asked for any of this - 3 selfish individuals just took it upon themselves to tie this huge millstone around our necks.

Contact our selectmen - the individuals now in place on the selectboard are working together for this town. They need to hear from us.

The start

2010-03-11T20:26:00.000-08:00

A smallish crowd - 35, plus 4 selectmen, one town manager, one town clerk taking minutes, and the NPC-TV camera person. The business of the town of Paris was transacted by the book, with decorum and dignity, and absolutely no hint of disorder. To the letter. Absolutely, no exception. At all. None. Every point covered. Completely.

The next to last item was to accept the resignation of Forrie Everett from the budget committee. Forrie has been a vital part of this community and this town's government, and his resignation was accepted, but with regret. He and his wife Pammie will be moving to Florida for the cold weather months, hopefully returning here in the summers. Forrie has made a difference in Paris. We are sorry to lose him.

The final item brought the following resolution by newly elected selectperson, Jean Smart:

"We will meet with our attorney at 6:30 pm, [and] go into executive session at our next meeting [ed. note: March 22]. If the attorney is not available [at that time], then there will be a special meeting scheduled."

Question to Mgr. Tarr, from our also newly elected selectperson, Ted Kurtz: "Can I come in tomorrow and look at the [lawsuit] file?" This is good. Gathering information, coming with questions ready; looking for answers to the questions.

There is still time. Gather information, ask questions, get accurate deadlines and procedures. No one wants this lawsuit. Few even really understand what it is about; and fewer still know how to stop it. We do not have to do this.

If you are one of the 600+ who signed the open letter to selectmen last June saying you were not consulted about the decision to fire; or one of the 1500+ who voted in November for a recall ordinance; or one of the 339 or the 279 to petition for a recall question on the ballot in December; or one of the 487 who turned out at the town meeting on Jan.7 and, after approving the fire truck purchase, defeated every single special agenda item; or one of the over 600+ voters in February who voted 2 selectmen out and another 2 back in - this message is for you:

CONTACT YOUR SELECTMEN. Tell them Paris does not need to go to court. Insist that they investigate, negotiate, and then come to some kind of decision that all parties in this lawsuit can live with. Tell them to find a way.

Thursday March 11 at 7 PM

2010-03-10T08:58:00.000-08:00

Posted as a link to this site is the Agenda for the selectmen's meeting. Note the final item, under "selectmen requests. This is a good beginning.

Bring questions, listen to the answers, talk with each other, ask more questions. It is going to take all of us to get the job done.

Ready to move on

2010-03-09T19:04:00.000-08:00

At 7 PM on March 11th at the fire station, the Paris Selectboard will have their first meeting with the 2 new sworn in members, bringing the board back to the full member status of 5.

Today's election saw Ted Kurtz elected by a count of 416 votes to fill the term that runs through June 30th, 2010. The term of the contested seat, sought by Jean Smart and Ken West, runs through June 30, 2012. Jean Smart was declared the winner with 323 votes.

Once again, the town of Paris extends its appreciaition to the staff in our town office for their extra efforts and their professionalism; we thank, one more time, the ballot clerks who have come and sat all day to monitor still another election, the 3rd in 5 weeks! And we thank the crew at the fire station who have helped with setting up, not only for the elections, but for the selectboard meetings as well.

12.5% of the registered voters in this town took time to come out and vote in a time of year that this town doesn't usually vote; 123 voted by absentee ballot. Citizens campaigned, wrote letters, called people, distributed flyers, and voted. When it comes right down to it, it is the people that make a town go. A town is about its people...all of them.

Come Thursday night. Be ready to ask questions about what this new team is going to do to get this town moving again. We have things to do, responsibilities to be met, plans that need to be put in order. [editor's note: refer to postings Unresolved Issues and What's on the list?]

Vote Tuesday March 9, Paris Fire Station

2010-03-07T18:49:00.001-08:00

Polls open 8AM - 8PM

(Absentee voting Monday 8:30 - 4:30 at Paris Town Office )

Candidates for term ending June 2012: Jean Smart, Ken West;
Candidate for term ending June 2010: Ted Kurtz (must be voted in even if unopposed)

Come and vote! Get your friends out to vote!

Agreeing that this town should be liable....

2010-03-07T18:23:00.000-08:00

If you have a need to remind yourself what made 611 Paris residents, citizens, and voters so angry on June 22, 2009 that they wrote an open letter to the Paris Selectmen and published it in 2 papers, saying "You did not speak for us when you fired Sharon Jackson!" - get yourself a copy of the dvd made by NPCTV.

You will come across the following little snatch of dialogue:

Selectman Young: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion...uh... to take a vote on...uh...page 2, termination...

Selectman Glover: So, you're suggesting she [Town Mgr. Jackson] be terminated without cause?

S. Young: Yes.

S. Glover: You're agreeing that this town should be liable for the penalties for termination?

S. Young: Yes.

We all know the rest of this sorry drama. Including the recalls that ended the political careers of a couple of select men.

The above conversation makes it pretty clear that someone, and whoever else was attached to that someone, knew there were going to be repercussions.

Good. Let's send them the bill for the thousands of dollars in legal fees from Bernstein & Shur that dealt with the resulting law suit and questions on how to avoid being recalled.

Let's send them the bill for the thousands of dollars involved in paying Mgr. Jackson the severance pay written into her contract; plus more, because they decided to "ratify" that firing in October, and the severance pay began all over again.

Maybe we can get them to reimburse the town at $1000 for each of the 2 recall elections in November, and the almost $1000 for the election coming up March 9; all of the elections the result of irresponsible decisions and unfortunate leadership skills.

Nice that they - or he and they - or however it gets sliced - agreed that the town should be liable for penalties for termination. Word aound town, however, is that the "town" (i.e. the tax payers) takes a very different view of that decision....