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....
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
On Monday Jan. 3...
...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.]
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.]
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Starting the new year
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....
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....
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Following concerns and interests
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?
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?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Concerns and Interests
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....
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....
Sunday, December 12, 2010
On Monday...
...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.
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.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Continuing to track
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)