There were articles about the Select Board race in today's Standard-Times and Chronicle. You can read the S-T article here. The Chronicle article was not online as yet.
UPDATE The Chronicle article is now onine here
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
In the news
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
The CFRG does their own thing! Don't blame everything on them! The failed leadership in this town is not caused by CFRG, the sweetheart contracts are not the fault of CFRG, the crisis we face is not the CFRG's fault, no plan for Dartmouth's future is not the fault of CFRG....I could go on and on but I will just vote. I am voting for some of the questions and am not following CFRG but I still thank them!
there IS a plan in place, if you disagree with the details or the timing, fine. Stop posting things that are so obviously refuted. I would thank CFRG if they held themselves to a better standard of accuracy in their information. Not holding my breath.
If there is a plan, please tell us what it is. We have been told for months now about this plan. What is it! You can easily refute it, go ahead. Tell us. A re-energized personnel board? The SB had no trouble renegotiating the contracts early and with job guarantees, what keeps them from fixing it?
Yes, good question...I have not seen a plan from M.Gagne or E. Icaponi. Only can tell us that question 5 will only be for one year! I do not want receivership and I think Dartmouth should try to solve this crisis.
At least the school has a plan !
We need a change in our town leadership. I'm voting yes on all questions and I'm voting for Bill Trimble!
We keep being told there is a plan but haven't seen one yet. Our town leaders haven't even been able to accomplish bi-weekly payroll. I can't remeber the last time in my working career, going on 20yrs., that I received a weekly paycheck. If it because town employees are unwilling to give up even that to help the town, then shame on them. However, has the town even tried yet?
I don't have time to be your tutor, it's not hard to find your own answers. One fact is that the contracts will be up in 2009 and they will be renegotiated simultaneously by a professional negotiator. This negotiator is being sought as we speak. Other parts of the plan follow the guidelines set by the DOR report a link is on this very site. I suggest you get off your duff and read.
Yes anonymous - you must have missed the 2-3 times that I am aware of where the bi-weekly payroll has been discussed. The answer is the SB has asked about this but all collective bargaining units have the weekly payroll as part of their contracts. This means you just can't implement a bi-weekly payroll. It will be negotiated when the contracts come due. The SB has committed to fighting for this. The answers are out their for people willing to listen for them.
momof3, perhaps you could post it on the town website so all can see it. You must have a hard copy of the plan, right?
Just because they say it, doesn't make it so!
Yes, like Kathleen has said in her comments: "we're on the brink of receivership", NOT according to the State.
See Curt Brown's front page article.
Again, scare tactics! I do realize that we have hard work to do. That doesn't mean getting ready for another override...it means making changes in the way the town does business.
Yes vote for change you are right -read the article. Fully.
momof3 I already know the answers because I have done the research. My question again is why hasn't bi-weekly payroll been implemented. It's very simple to sit down with the parties involved and just ask. If the town employees and unions are not willing to do even that then how can I feel sorry for job losses? We are talking about a very simple change that has no negative impact. If the unions were really interested in helping their members and town employees were really interested in helping the town that employees them, don't you think this would be an easy compromise? Again it comes down to a lot of talk but nothing to benefit the taxpayers. A show of good faith would go a long way or is that too much to ask when requesting millions of dollars?
anonymous I have been listening. What I hear is "we are committed, we are looking into, we have recharged", etc. I am not asking the SB to implement bi-weekly payroll. What I am asking is that all interested parties be brought together and be requested to comply with this measure to help the town. Has the SB tried to do this or are they just waiting for the contracts to expire? It seems to me there were other contracts that were renegotiated before they expired. Remember those job security clauses?
By the way, loved the receivership article today. Puts to rest all those nasty scare tactics.
the importance of reading comprehension is never more clear than after reading these posts. Most of us don't want to wait until imminent receivership to support the town. I'm not scared, just sad.
There are no scare tactics that I am aware of. The article states receivership is not an option any town should look to as an answer. It also says we are not on the brink of receivership since we are currently financially sound. We have just over $2 million dollars in the stabilization fund that if used to pay our bills will last 2-3 years- there is no joy in that scenario. It certainly makes abundant sense to raise red flags loudly and often well before receivership occurs rather then wit till it arrives. Have we not heard the crys from so many saying they were never informed in time to prevent our current crisis?
Should we wait until the last breath until we ask for help?
No we've wasted enough time already! It's been 8 months since the failed overried request last August!
We need change now!
See comments below Curt's article about Greg Lynam's take on things before jumping to any more conclusions.
No one is jumping to conclusions. The article pointed out that Dartmouth is nowhere near receivership unlike the information from our town leaders who claim we are on the brink and about to fall into the ocean again. People want to know what's going on in a clear concise way without the dramatics. Yes Dartmouth is in trouble. I think everyone now knows that. To exaggerate the situation is demeaning to the voters. When you have SB members telling the public receivership is inevitable and about to happen any moment and then you have an article in the paper disclaiming that very thing, the voters can't help but question our leaders competence, knowledge, and honesty.
Joe Michaud's letter in today's paper was interesting. Once again it was full of "we are going to, we are looking into, we are working on, we have discussed". Where are the dollars saved with all this work that's been going on for all this time? Okay I know we saved on the streetlights, actual amount is still unknown, and we added 1.8 million with PAYT, but have there been any other savings that haven't come directly from the taxpayers? I haven't heard a dollar amount, have you? In all fairness I can't place all the blame on the SB. It is not their job to make a plan, direct town departments, require dept. heads to prioritize their budgets etc. The biggest fault of the SB is not directing the town administrator. That is their job. There has been no pressure that I have seen to hold Mr. Gagne accountable. He is being paid a lot of money. It is his responsibility to have a plan. Why did the SB take on his work? After almost a year we still don't have a working plan. It has been quite clear for some time that he is not doing his job. At this point the SB should be evaluating his competency and ability to fulfill his job requirements. Since there seems to be such an importance placed on degrees and qualifications, what are Mr. Gagne's qualifications for holding this position?
Gagne, Iacaponi, and others are not held to the same standards they would be if in the private sector. However, SB clearly does not want to run Dartmouth like an efficient business, so maybe that explains it.
Just what are Gagne’s performance measures? How is his work evaluated?
Is it based upon the condition of the town? (Ooops, not doing so good there…)
Is it based upon the efficiency of his hiring? (Oooops, bad contract negotiation, gave away WAAAAY too much there….)
Is in based upon the comprehensive, long-range, detailed plan he developed to pull Dartmouth out of the quagmire? (Oooops, he hasn’t created a plan, hasn’t commissioned a plan, hasn’t flung plan ideas at the wall to see what sticks there…..)
Gee, I think I’ve figured it out!
Dartmouth IS NOT A BUSINESS, it is a NON-PROFIT SHELTER for incompetence!
Post a Comment