...to get Paris back on track.
Paris voters are intent on doing so; but...the weather is not pleasant...we are still working out what to tackle first...and the plate seems so very full. We will have to help each other stay on task. [see Feb.14 Asking questions, not blaming or pointing fingers].
Tomorrow, Thursday 2-25-10, at 7 PM, Paris Selectmen will meet at the Paris Fire Station, immediately following the candidate forum. [agenda] Note item #3, "Joint meeting with the Norway Board of Selectmen..."
It seems that Paris isn't the only town needing to tackle irresponsible leadership issues. Norway Paris Solid Waste, a jointly operated waste management program for the two towns, is in critical need of long-neglected oversight - a correction thought to have been put in place June 2009, when voters of both towns enacted a new interlocal agreement. [ Feb.17 Stepping in to assess]
Yes, our plate is as full as it looks at first glance. Many, many people have stepped up; more are needed.
*People are taking advantage of voting by absentee ballot for the election on March 9th.
*Others are marking their calendars, and joining the list of volunteers who will call to remind folks to vote March 9.
*New names are being added to committees that make this municipal machine work.
*More and more people are finding the time to come to meetings where decisions that affect all of us are routinely made - meetings using information, that, except for very few instances, should always be available to the voters.
*Better and more informed questions keep coming - from a wide variety of voters.
This is our town. We are responsible for it. All of it - even the mistakes. Mistakes have to be cleaned up; we just have to roll up our sleeves, pitch in, and get the job done.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Is it really all that important to vote March 9?
Haven’t Paris voters done enough? Haven’t we petitioned and talked and voted, already? Can’t we take a little break now? Aren’t things all better now? Isn’t this where we’re supposed to live happily ever after?
Well…voting is no less critical now than it was on January 7, when 487 Paris voters turned out on a cold, dark Thursday night at Paris Elementary School and took a defiant stand against a poorly planned, small-group agenda. It is no less critical than the 2 recall elections in the first week of February, when, including those who voted absentee ballot, over 700 Paris voters marked their ballots each day.
Paris voters are getting Paris back on track, and we must take nothing for granted. We need to finish the job of getting responsible people elected; and then we need to be certain we understand what the issues are and demand responsible solutions.
We have a lawsuit about which most of the voters know very little, and a deadline with responsibilities; we have a solid waste program, in joint municipal management with Norway, being run by less than responsible individuals; and we have a budget that has become irresponsibly over-burdened.
The word responsible crops up everywhere.
So, No, Paris voters - we are not finished. We’ve just begun.
If you are ready to vote but cannot vote on the 9th, go to the Paris Town office and vote absentee ballot beginning Monday, Feb. 22.
If you want to learn more about who is running to fill the 2 vacancies left by the recall elections, plan to attend the candidate forum at 6 PM this Thursday, February 25 at the Paris Fire Station; find out what those running have to offer this town, so you can make an informed choice. We need to elect good leaders, people who are informed, people we judge to be responsive to the whole town, not just people who have fine words to offer.
Stay for the selectmen’s meeting if you can, at 7 PM. As noted in the previous post, a heavy agenda is planned.
Well…voting is no less critical now than it was on January 7, when 487 Paris voters turned out on a cold, dark Thursday night at Paris Elementary School and took a defiant stand against a poorly planned, small-group agenda. It is no less critical than the 2 recall elections in the first week of February, when, including those who voted absentee ballot, over 700 Paris voters marked their ballots each day.
Paris voters are getting Paris back on track, and we must take nothing for granted. We need to finish the job of getting responsible people elected; and then we need to be certain we understand what the issues are and demand responsible solutions.
We have a lawsuit about which most of the voters know very little, and a deadline with responsibilities; we have a solid waste program, in joint municipal management with Norway, being run by less than responsible individuals; and we have a budget that has become irresponsibly over-burdened.
The word responsible crops up everywhere.
So, No, Paris voters - we are not finished. We’ve just begun.
If you are ready to vote but cannot vote on the 9th, go to the Paris Town office and vote absentee ballot beginning Monday, Feb. 22.
If you want to learn more about who is running to fill the 2 vacancies left by the recall elections, plan to attend the candidate forum at 6 PM this Thursday, February 25 at the Paris Fire Station; find out what those running have to offer this town, so you can make an informed choice. We need to elect good leaders, people who are informed, people we judge to be responsive to the whole town, not just people who have fine words to offer.
Stay for the selectmen’s meeting if you can, at 7 PM. As noted in the previous post, a heavy agenda is planned.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Moving forward
Actively looking for ways to step out of the tangle at their feet,
It is the voters in a town who are responsible for how money is spent and resources are safeguarded. It is the voters who are responsible for the people they put into public office and the voters who must demand accountability from those officials.
February 25th at
February 25th at
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Stepping in to assess
As Paris citizens are asking questions and working to understand what went wrong and where do things stand now, Sunday 2-14-10, Paris voters have an additional opportunity. We have an opportunity to work in tandem with voters in Norway to assess what is working - or not - in the implementation of an interlocal agreement that Paris and Norway voters approved in June 2009 to operate a solid waste management program.
Today the Norway Paris Solid Waste board held their regular monthly meeting, this time at 3 pm at the Norway Town Office. As the board of directors were about to go into executive session to discuss the board's legal rights as interpreted by counsel, one of the directors, currently in exile at the whim of the board, pointed out that the presence of an attorney, either in person or by phone, was required for such a session to be legal. Failing in that effort, she attempted to attend the executive session, and was escorted from the room by 2 Norway police officers.
[editor's note: Executive session, according to Title 1 MRSA sec.405(6)(e) , requires either a lawyer to be present, or one to be on site via a conference call by phone MMA's interpretation of case law. The NPSW board had neither of these today.]
Fifteen or twenty minutes later, the executive session ended, the door opened to the public, and the exiled officer who had been removed was returned to the group; everyone went back in to continue the meeting.
All business continued lickety-split; questions were put out by the chairman or treasurer; and voted on in lockstep, neat and tidy, all hands up, all eyes on the table; no discussion required.
Except: in the silence following a motion that had been seconded and approved to have an inter-account transfer of $10,000, the chairman seemed compelled to ask the board members, "Doesn't anyone want to know why [there was a transfer] ?" There was another minute of silence; then, as if picking up the cue, one board member finally said, "Yes, I want to know." The treasurer then took great pains, and went to great lengths to explain why it had always been done this way.
The reason for this little staged activity was...?
...Then back to lockstep, before, during, and after.
"Any questions? All in favor? Unanimous," says the chairman.
The audience wonders: Where did any discussion happen? Are we to assume that everybody on the board already knew everything? As opposed to the tax payers sitting in the audience who knew nothing? So, of course the vote was unanimous? Every time?
If a nugget of intention could be derived from the proceedings, it might very well be that, in defiance of the interlocal agreement, the NPSW board threw down the gauntlet: they intend to ask their attorney (a local attorney, not either town's attorney) to correspond with the Town of Paris regarding whether there has been... a breach?...of agreement? of contract? of what, seemed not too clear.... and how it should be resolved.
In defending a decision made in keeping with the new bylaws for the board, drafted by them for them, in favor of them, they cherry-picked a piece out of Section 7 of the interlocal agreement (the agreement they have long declared unacceptable)): the piece that says if there is a dispute that cannot be settled, then an arbiter needs to be brought in.
Did you get that? Good for you. Most everybody in the room this afternoon was left in complete confusion, not to mention dismay.
Thursday 2-18-10 at 6 PM at the Norway Town Office, the selectmen and town managers of both towns will have another go at it.
Our money, our resources, our responsibility. And their mismanagement. Come and watch. There might be a slim chance of asking a question.
[editor's note: On the board of the NPSW: Norway: Bruce Cook; Eric Grondahl; Dundee Pratt; Paris: Joe Bracey; Bruce Hanson, treasurer; Al Atkinson, Ch.; Janet Jamison, in exile.]
Today the Norway Paris Solid Waste board held their regular monthly meeting, this time at 3 pm at the Norway Town Office. As the board of directors were about to go into executive session to discuss the board's legal rights as interpreted by counsel, one of the directors, currently in exile at the whim of the board, pointed out that the presence of an attorney, either in person or by phone, was required for such a session to be legal. Failing in that effort, she attempted to attend the executive session, and was escorted from the room by 2 Norway police officers.
[editor's note: Executive session, according to Title 1 MRSA sec.405(6)(e) , requires either a lawyer to be present, or one to be on site via a conference call by phone MMA's interpretation of case law. The NPSW board had neither of these today.]
Fifteen or twenty minutes later, the executive session ended, the door opened to the public, and the exiled officer who had been removed was returned to the group; everyone went back in to continue the meeting.
All business continued lickety-split; questions were put out by the chairman or treasurer; and voted on in lockstep, neat and tidy, all hands up, all eyes on the table; no discussion required.
Except: in the silence following a motion that had been seconded and approved to have an inter-account transfer of $10,000, the chairman seemed compelled to ask the board members, "Doesn't anyone want to know why [there was a transfer] ?" There was another minute of silence; then, as if picking up the cue, one board member finally said, "Yes, I want to know." The treasurer then took great pains, and went to great lengths to explain why it had always been done this way.
The reason for this little staged activity was...?
...Then back to lockstep, before, during, and after.
"Any questions? All in favor? Unanimous," says the chairman.
The audience wonders: Where did any discussion happen? Are we to assume that everybody on the board already knew everything? As opposed to the tax payers sitting in the audience who knew nothing? So, of course the vote was unanimous? Every time?
If a nugget of intention could be derived from the proceedings, it might very well be that, in defiance of the interlocal agreement, the NPSW board threw down the gauntlet: they intend to ask their attorney (a local attorney, not either town's attorney) to correspond with the Town of Paris regarding whether there has been... a breach?...of agreement? of contract? of what, seemed not too clear.... and how it should be resolved.
In defending a decision made in keeping with the new bylaws for the board, drafted by them for them, in favor of them, they cherry-picked a piece out of Section 7 of the interlocal agreement (the agreement they have long declared unacceptable)): the piece that says if there is a dispute that cannot be settled, then an arbiter needs to be brought in.
Did you get that? Good for you. Most everybody in the room this afternoon was left in complete confusion, not to mention dismay.
Thursday 2-18-10 at 6 PM at the Norway Town Office, the selectmen and town managers of both towns will have another go at it.
Our money, our resources, our responsibility. And their mismanagement. Come and watch. There might be a slim chance of asking a question.
[editor's note: On the board of the NPSW: Norway: Bruce Cook; Eric Grondahl; Dundee Pratt; Paris: Joe Bracey; Bruce Hanson, treasurer; Al Atkinson, Ch.; Janet Jamison, in exile.]
Monday, February 15, 2010
Citizen tidbit....
Just in:
The Norway Paris Solid Waste board is to meet monthly. Over the last 6 months, the time and place for those meetings, all public access, have not always been published in a timely manner - nor has the pattern of the time and place been particularly predictable.
Jungle drums are telling us, today, that at 3 PM this Wednesday, 2-17-10 (day after tomorrow, depending on when you read this) at the Norway Town Office, whoever can find their way there , will meet for this month.
A meeting of the newly-self-bylawed NPSW board....a really obscure time, and, a day before the selectmen and town managers of both towns in the interlocal agreement plan to hold a meeting to review and discuss the whole set up....
Come and watch.
The Norway Paris Solid Waste board is to meet monthly. Over the last 6 months, the time and place for those meetings, all public access, have not always been published in a timely manner - nor has the pattern of the time and place been particularly predictable.
Jungle drums are telling us, today, that at 3 PM this Wednesday, 2-17-10 (day after tomorrow, depending on when you read this) at the Norway Town Office, whoever can find their way there , will meet for this month.
A meeting of the newly-self-bylawed NPSW board....a really obscure time, and, a day before the selectmen and town managers of both towns in the interlocal agreement plan to hold a meeting to review and discuss the whole set up....
Come and watch.
Citizen Reminder
Thursday Feb. 18 at 6 PM the selectboard and town managers from Norway and Paris will meet together to examine and discuss where responsibility and authority lie vis-à-vis the interlocal agreement both towns entered into regarding Norway-Paris Solid Waste. This meeting was rescheduled from 2-4-10. See previous posting
Our tax dollars are at stake; private agendas are involved; controversy seems to be reigning supreme. It is a positive step to begin a dialog between the two towns on this issue. It is a public meeting, as all meetings involving our town resources must be.
Please come if you can.
Our tax dollars are at stake; private agendas are involved; controversy seems to be reigning supreme. It is a positive step to begin a dialog between the two towns on this issue. It is a public meeting, as all meetings involving our town resources must be.
Please come if you can.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Asking questions, not blaming and finger pointing....
Paris citizens are in the midst of figuring out what happened; what brought us to this, elected officials recalled and a law suit against the town? These are not little nothing pieces, normally expected incidents of every day life for the average Paris tax payer, citizen, resident.
We need to be asking questions, uncovering information, learning the truth of activities not presented to the public honestly for 7 months; we need to understand what has happened, where our town government's system went wrong, and what we can do to repair it. We need to know how to make the mechanical operation of our town stronger and we need to rebuild the trust that greases the skids and fuels that operation for all citizens.
We need to be very wary of the blaming and finger pointing that inevitably crops up when some folks look for handy quick solutions, especially if that blaming and finger pointing can act as a diversion from something somebody doesn't wish to have discovered; or, if discovered, certainly not considered valid. Or if, perhaps, blaming, finger pointing, and making excuses might deflect focusing on something overlooked, or something that could have been changed if caught earlier.
On the topic of law suits, we need to ask:
*There have clearly been two offers to settle out of court. Why was the first one not picked up on? Phone bills are an excellent source of information, and they are public record. TPR has published several, including the October bill in question. posting
*Unfortunately Paris is only now becoming savvy to uncovering tricky maneuvers, like not making legal offers known to the proper people. Would that offer have made clear what the original intent was for the lawsuit (instead of the behemoth that issue has become since) ?
As a citizen asked at the selectmen's meeting 2-08, "Might one of those offers still be good?" Did anyone call either lawyer to find out? Are they going to? Why not? It's a good question.
*If the ball was dropped on the town's side, whether because of tricky maneuvers or simply not paying attention, is there not some responsibility to look more closely, examine options more carefully now? As opposed to slamming the door shut and announcing in a loud voice "Too late" ?
On the topic of officials recalled, we need to ask:
*In order to understand how to prevent every citizen who chooses to run for office to fear for that dreaded R-word, what happened to cause over 330 Paris Voters to sign petitions in November 2009 for recall of two elected officials? The petition, even though bullied this way and that, that achieved the recall, in February 2010, of those two officials who had, at one time, been duly elected?
On the topic of who's paying the bill for all this, we need to ask:
*As the Checkbook for who pays for what goes on in this town, how do we tax payers get a handle on
(1) what we owe because of this circus;
(2) where is the money going to come from;
(3) what can we demand be put in place to make sure the tax payers have easy access to information, on a regular basis, explaining in full what we owe? Now, and in the future.
This is only the beginning of what we need to ask. This town is run at the behest of the voters in this town. There are times when nobody agrees on how; times when some agree on one thing, and some on another; and, fortunately, there are times when a majority agrees on a thing.
Then, there are times when a small minority wants its own way, at the expense of the rest of us; and that is not a good thing.
Then we need to talk.
We need to be asking questions, uncovering information, learning the truth of activities not presented to the public honestly for 7 months; we need to understand what has happened, where our town government's system went wrong, and what we can do to repair it. We need to know how to make the mechanical operation of our town stronger and we need to rebuild the trust that greases the skids and fuels that operation for all citizens.
We need to be very wary of the blaming and finger pointing that inevitably crops up when some folks look for handy quick solutions, especially if that blaming and finger pointing can act as a diversion from something somebody doesn't wish to have discovered; or, if discovered, certainly not considered valid. Or if, perhaps, blaming, finger pointing, and making excuses might deflect focusing on something overlooked, or something that could have been changed if caught earlier.
On the topic of law suits, we need to ask:
*There have clearly been two offers to settle out of court. Why was the first one not picked up on? Phone bills are an excellent source of information, and they are public record. TPR has published several, including the October bill in question. posting
*Unfortunately Paris is only now becoming savvy to uncovering tricky maneuvers, like not making legal offers known to the proper people. Would that offer have made clear what the original intent was for the lawsuit (instead of the behemoth that issue has become since) ?
As a citizen asked at the selectmen's meeting 2-08, "Might one of those offers still be good?" Did anyone call either lawyer to find out? Are they going to? Why not? It's a good question.
*If the ball was dropped on the town's side, whether because of tricky maneuvers or simply not paying attention, is there not some responsibility to look more closely, examine options more carefully now? As opposed to slamming the door shut and announcing in a loud voice "Too late" ?
On the topic of officials recalled, we need to ask:
*In order to understand how to prevent every citizen who chooses to run for office to fear for that dreaded R-word, what happened to cause over 330 Paris Voters to sign petitions in November 2009 for recall of two elected officials? The petition, even though bullied this way and that, that achieved the recall, in February 2010, of those two officials who had, at one time, been duly elected?
On the topic of who's paying the bill for all this, we need to ask:
*As the Checkbook for who pays for what goes on in this town, how do we tax payers get a handle on
(1) what we owe because of this circus;
(2) where is the money going to come from;
(3) what can we demand be put in place to make sure the tax payers have easy access to information, on a regular basis, explaining in full what we owe? Now, and in the future.
This is only the beginning of what we need to ask. This town is run at the behest of the voters in this town. There are times when nobody agrees on how; times when some agree on one thing, and some on another; and, fortunately, there are times when a majority agrees on a thing.
Then, there are times when a small minority wants its own way, at the expense of the rest of us; and that is not a good thing.
Then we need to talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)