This op-ed letter in the S-T today is pretty breathtaking in its ability to cloud the real issue, spin the facts, and pivot to completely unrelated issues.
First, It is the Select Board, who agreed to these contract terms which are clearly not in the interest of the town, that is responsible for "creat(ing) resentment, suspicion, mistrust and a kettle full of distasteful innuendo" and not the person who revealed the details. Our elected officials need to respond to these revelations if they hope to get the electorate to vote for an override.
Second, these contracts were made with the Executive Administrator, Budget Director, DPW Superintendent, Director of Assessing, Director of Inspectional Services, Town Collector, Harbormaster, and municipal paralegal. While some on that list may be critical employees, some are clearly not. Even if difficult to replace, no one is indispensable.
As pointed out in the letter, some of these employees have worked for the town for many years. They don't need these contractual guarantees if they are clearly doing such a great job.
Lastly, the idea that guaranteeing jobs, salary and benefits to town employees is an example of good top level government, common sense, and smart management is so transparently spinning the issue that it needs no response.
UPDATE-CORRECTION
I made an error in the original post when listing the employees covered by these no-cut contracts. The Town Collector, not the Town Accountant, is one of the eight. Correction is in italics above BT
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Spin, pivot, cloud
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Any SB members who signed those contracts should come forward and tell the public their reason for doing so. I appreciate Mr. Hawes "educated guess" (we all have an opinion), but we don't need to guess on this one! Any SB members out there want to answer the question???????
Let's not forget to mention that these job security clauses and the vast majority of personal contracts are in direct conflict with the Department of Revenue fiscal management recommendations. Before we descend upon the state house with our collective pitchforks, as suggested by Greg Lynam, it would be in our best interest to be in full compliance with DOR recommendations. These would include, but not be limited to, completing the task of obtaining a lock box service, impact bargaining to convert to bi-weekly payroll, and yes, eliminating personal contracts that are not specifically authorized by state law.
Anonymous, you may have missed an earlier post "Take It For What It Is". In one of Bill's comments under that post are some links to the MV Gazette. The articles refer to a similar situation regarding personal contracts which happened in Oak Bluffs. Oak Bluffs had 16 personal contracts, still less than Dartmouth's 24, but well beyond what the state law allows. In the articles you will find the Oak Bluffs SB's solution to the problem. Note the emphasis on transparency. I highly recommend going back to this older post and checking it out.
I am in complete agreement with the 3 comments already posted. I too would like an explanation for the renegotiating of still new contracts with the security clauses.I would also like D.O.R. recommendation compliance.
It semms that every time a letter goes into the paper stating facts , as did Beverly Days' letter, along comes a response patting the very same people on the back who were/are at the helm while this ship has been sinking. In the private sector, management gets demoted or fired for what happens on their watch and occasionally rewarded when things go well, the idea being that's what they get the big bucks for!
You people are actually the reason Dartmouth is in the position it is in. The issue of the contracts has been addressed. The offensive language will be removed when the contracts are up. The Selectboard has already committed that personal contracts will not be extended to any individuals other than high level staff. The Town government has made great strides toward remedying the issues of the past. It is this regime that has begun to make the difficult changes this Town needs. I say let them continue their work and shut up!
anonymous,
I attended the select board meeting on jan 28 when they went through all the DOR recommendations and the progress made. Recommendation #7 which relates to personal contracts was addressed by Ed I.. His response was that it would be better for the town to retain the contracts in question. Do you have an inside track on this and know something I don't? Please let me in on when they changed their policy. They are fully aware of what our presentation will be so maybe that influenced a change. If so, that's great! Also, it's impolite to tell people to shut up. Of course, I would be happy to stop asking questions about my tax dollars as long as they are willing to return the checks I send in.
Excuse me anonymous! The SB knew about the sweetheart contracts last summer and during all these last months while they were 'working hard' and 'making great strides' and now that the contract language has been exposed...they are going to address it! I wonder why we don't trust some of our SB members!!!!! So, the citizens should also keep working hard to make sure that our town government represents the interest of the taxpayers.
As we can see from some comments here, the spin, pivot and cloud crowd are in full swing. It is not the early renewal of contracts with sweetheart deals that cause people to have distrust of the town management, it is the revelation of those deals that is the problem.
Refusal to address why and by whom this contract language was included in the first place is replaced with future promises not to do it again.
Platitudes about progress and change are spun out without any actual measurable results to back them up.
Kim, obviously you have not been paying close attention. The issue of the "contract language" was brought forward by the opponents in the last override attempt. Yes the Selectboard has made significant changes including relating to the language. Do you have a problem with that???
anonymous, I don't have a problem with the fact that the SB is dealing with the contract language now. I do have a problem with the fact that the language was there IN THE FIRST PLACE! Would the SB be dealing with this if the contracts had not been requested and shown to the public?
anonymous, please specify the exact "significant changes" you are referring to. You seem to have information that we are not privy to. If that is the case then you should let the public know and end the controversy. Throwing out vague comments is not going to convince the voters. I for one would welcome a clear and concise report from the SB stating exactly what steps have been taken. That way we could move on to other issues that need addressing. I'm quite sure that if any real "significant changes" had been made they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Post a Comment