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." ?
