...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?
