Mr. Lynam of the Finance Committee addressed our executive administrator situation in this op-ed letter in today's Standard Times.
What do you think?
I say, well stated.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Mr. Lynam on change
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
I doubt it could have been said much better. Mr. Lynam is a respected voice in town. His op-ed piece was realistic and honest, and respectful of all individuals involved. It is what it is. If we can accept the election of, or opportunity for, new leadership every four years, why can't we accept the need for new leadership in Dartmouth?
I also doubt anyone in town would dispute the fact that Michael Gagne is a dedicated, hard-working employee who loves this town and puts in long hours on its behalf. For that alone, he is to be respected.
I agree and thought Mr. Lynam had a well thought out letter on the subject. He has knowledge about the town finances and has worked with Mr. Gagne for several years. He respects Mr. Gagne, but is happy with the vote that the Select Board took not to re-new Mr. Gagne's contract.
I also agree that it was not a popular thing to do, but it is the leadership that Dartmouth has been looking for for a long while.
Making changes for the sake of change is not leadership. Its reckless. If we really want change we should throw the whole lot out, finance, select board and school committee. Its time for a Mayoral form of government. Just as Mr. Lynam stated it is not the quiet little town anymore. It is a complicated multi faceted enterprise.
Just as we are seeing with the Obama appointees, its the same old retreads that get appointed. Back to the future. I don't see any rivals yet on his team. There will not be any change in Dartmouth, just someone who will agree with the majority of the board.
So how do you propose to make change happen when continuing on the same path? How do you know change won't occur with someone else leading the way and why believe that if there is change, it will not be positive? Let's just say a new exec. admin. does agree with the majority of the SB. Why does that have to be a bad thing? Didn't the people vote for the SB members because they agreed with their views? The decision has been made. Let's support the SB and stop the negativity.
Got it. Agree or get out of the way. Just like that political cartoon last week that showed Bush at a 51% vote signifies a divided nation and Obama with 52% signifies a nation united. Have another sip.
I am very disappointed to see Mr. Lynam's op ed piece on this blog. Mr. Trimble, you had decided not to allow comments to your post about the executive session where Mr. Gagne was told that his contract would not be renewed. So be it . . .that's fair. I don't believe the same can be said of choosing to post op ed pieces that reflect only one point of view. Please give this some thought and, in fairness, post all the op ed pieces on the topic or none of them.
Never said you have to agree. Just threw out some questions. There are many people I work with that I don't always agree with but we try to listen to each other and work with what we have. If we get a new boss with different policies, then we work with those policies. That doesn't mean we stop offering opinions or allow ourselves to have a negative attitude.
Thanks for your concern, Disappointed. I think your pseudonym captures how most town residents feel about the direction our town HAD been headed.
Vive le changement!
Si se puede cambiar!
Ändern Sie ist gut!
Sim, sim nós podemos mudar!
Bravo Select Board!
Gott im Himmel!
Greg Lynam has been on the Finance Com. for a long time and knows everything there is to know about our town's fiscal crisis. (sometimes I think he knows more than Ed I.) I respect his opinion as do many others. He is thinking about what is in the best interest for the town. Thank you Bill, Joe, and Diane for sticking your necks out there! The past Select Boards have been part of the problem. Those sweetheart contracts that came to light a while back were a real wake up call for our town to pay attention. To her credit, Diane didn't sign. Good for her! Bob C. and Nat D. did sign, shame on them.
I agree. It's time for change. After Gagne and Iacaponi, Trimble should go. Then Gilbert should go. Then Michaud should go. Then Lynam should go.
Do others agree that we need change? Good idea. Replace them all. They're the ones who gopt us into this mess. We need new blood. New Select Board members. New Finance Committee members.
The vocal proponents for change can lead the way by resigning their office to show they're serious about change. How about it Trimble? What say you?
Thank you Bill, Diane, and Joe. You have shown real leadership just like Greg Lynam said this morning in the Standard Times. Well said Greg!
Where will the new direction take us and how did Mr. Gagne stand in the way?
I can't see how Mr. Trimble should resign for getting us into this mess when he only became a SB member last April. Mr. Lynam??? He is one of this town's most valuable assets. Mr. Lynam is the one responsible for doing the spreadsheets for the town budget. Ed I.'s job by the way. He is also one of the few who have been sounding the alarms regarding our financial crisis. He has stood up against town officials' rhetoric and stated the facts. It would be a sorry day for Dartmouth if we lost Mr. Lynam.
Ahhh. I see. It isn't that you want change so much as you just want Gagne and Iacaponi out. Calling it "change" just makes it easier to do. LOL
anon 8;44 where have you been? The alarms have been sounding for at least 5 years and more.
Mr. Lynam certainly is an asset to the town but he is far from being the only one giving us warnings.
Mike Gagne and Ed Iacaponi are assets to the town. This isn't about retaining valuable people, silly. It's about change. New people. Let's go. ALL new people. Out with every one of them. Here's a new three year bumpersticker for people in Dartmouth - ABI: Anyone But Incumbents. That included appointed Boards. Toss 'em all. We want change. We need change. We demand change!
While we're at it, get rid of every Town Meeting Member. That crusty old bunch of windbags is only second to the Gang of Three on the Select Board when it comes to being useless.
Change. Change. Change!
Crusty? Old? Hmm, at 43 as a town meeting member I never thought of myself as crusty or old. I wonder if the author of that gem has considered giving of his/her time to anything in town. I know calling people that do donate of their time names is great fun but I mean, come on surely you can conribute more than that?
To 11/21 1:27 p.m. Be careful what you wish for.
Bill, I agree with anonymous that wants you to post letters to the editor from both sides of the executive administrator issue. Could you post Kevin Lee's letter so we can hammer it soundly into oblivion?
Oh ya gotta love this town.
Bill has a salary range been established for this position. WIll there be performance reviews and a list of goals that you would like the new person to fulfill? What will be the list of qualifications for this position?
When will the position be advertised and what is the SB's expectation as to when they want someone on the job. Given the town's situation and the position we are now in is the SB's 'job one' filling this job as soon as possible?
I would assume he needs to have his Open Meeting Law hearing, if it is determined he is entitled to one, before any advertising for the position gets started.
One would certainly hope the SB will weigh in heavily on performance reviews for all employees, including those at the top, if they are not already doing so. There is no excuse on any of their part for no long-term plan. This is their chance for a fresh start, irregardless what happens in Mr. Gagne's case. There's no room to let things slide any longer. The public knows this. It is time they did, too.
AND IT IS LONG OVERDUE THAT THOSE WHO KNEW IT WERE HELD RESPONSIBLE.
I also don't know if this is currently being done, but I also think employees in top positions should have a written set of goals they want to achieve, so that they can be evaluated in part on their success in achieving these goals, irregardless of whether they are union or not. Maybe more attention would be paid to the Charter, as there definitely are written, mandated responsibilities outlined for officials/administrators, the completion of which would definitely constitute some goal-setting, and would be an excellent tool for performance reviews.
You act like Dartmouth is the first town ever to have to hire an exec. admin. Qualifications, performance reviews etc. I have a feeling there are resources out there available to the SB when it comes time to start the process and they will take full advantage of them. I'll bet that this time around the SB does the research and hires someone who is actually qualified. Gagne was not recommended by SCORE who was asked by the powers that be at the time to find candidates and make recommendations. SCORE actually rejected Gagne's application and then finally threw up its hands when the town insisted on hiring him anyway. Since a unbiased assessment was rejected the first time around and you obviously support that decision, why be so concerned on how the next decision for a candidate to fill the position is arrived at?
Give me a break anonymous 12:10, they hired Gagne 22 years ago when I was a lad of 15 so no, his original appointment really had a negligible impact on my life. In fact how he got appointed mattered not a wit. I do know he's done a good job for a long time and deserves some type of review. The silence from Bill on this matter gives me my answer. There apparently was no review and I assume there are no performance goals he was expected to meet. This gives me pause when I think of the SB hiring the replacement. What assurances are there that they will implement even the most rudimentary set of expectations when this matter was handled so poorly.
Perhaps the new hire will be of the same "quality" as the censured lawyer they recently utilized
Just out of curiosity, why don't you point fingers at the other SB members who are giving out no details on the non-renewal? There are four others to pick on.
They CAN'T give out any details yet. This is the Mass General Law.
How about meeting the mandates of the Charter for a "goal"? How about a long-term plan??
The reason this matter was handled so poorly is because someone, I'd be willing to bet who, released information to the public that should not have been released. There are laws governing executive session meetings. Why haven't any of Michael's supporters ever requested that previous executive session minutes and information be released? It is Michael's job to do so but he hasn't so far. Employee matters are dealt with all the time in executive session but you don't seem to have a problem with those. Why should an executive session concerning Mr. Gagne be any different? He does work for the town doesn't he?
What part of my question regarding performance review of the exec administrator is so difficult to grasp? Were they done or were they not done-has nothing to do with executive session issues.
What part of executive session don't you understand? It has everything to do with executive session issues. The information pertaining to an executive session meeting is not to be public knowledge until all matters have been resolved. So how do you know what has and has not been done? It would seem you are just trying to stir the pot and doing a poor job at best.
This whole thing is stunning in its simplicity. The problems facing the town are daunting--far too daunting for the current form of government. A great deal of time will be devoted to finding the right person for Michael's job. No one will have the necessary attributes. Enter Joe Michaud, Dartmouth's first mayor. Long live the king!
Only one problem with your scenario, Disappointed. A charter change takes a couple of years at best to complete.
Don't be so sure. According to the mass.gov website, a charter commission is not always necessary:
Under Section 10, an alternative process which does not involve a charter commission is available to amend a previously adopted or revised charter. It begins with a two-thirds vote of a city council (with concurrence of the mayor), or by two-thirds vote of town meeting. A public hearing must be held within three months and final action must occur within six months of the date of proposal. Each proposal must be submitted to the Attorney General for approval and then to the voters.
Special Act - As an alternative, a community can adopt, revise or amend a charter by a special act of the State Legislature. Special acts, or special laws, involving government structure are applicable only to one city or town and, with few exceptions, are deemed to have the force of a charter. In cities, the city council must approve submission of a special act, and in towns, approval of town meeting is required. Under rarely used provisions of law, changes to local charters can be imposed on recommendation of the Governor and two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature.
Local actions to adopt, revise or amend a charter through a special law need not be approved by the voters at-large before, or after, Legislative enactment in order to take effect. However, as a matter of practice, the Legislature, or the city council or town meeting locally, almost always make special laws to adopt or change a charter contingent on voter approval.
State law does not mandate or prescribe any procedure for arriving at proposed charter provisions when a special act is to be drafted. However, a local government study committee, typically appointed by the selectmen, or when town meeting directs, by the moderator, is a frequently used method. The appointing authority is not restricted in the number of committee members. It can define the charge of the committee broadly to encompass all aspects of local government, to narrow the scope of investigation, or to ensure that particular matters are included within the committee’s focus. In its charge, the committee can also be directed to complete its work in a shorter time frame than what the law requires for a charter commission.
Where there's a will. . .
For something as important as charter reform and/or change of government, I would prefer to see Dartmouth utilize the charter reform commission route. It would take almost exactly two years but I think the 18 months that the commission has to produce its recommendations, and the open hearings required, would be good for the process.
Anonymous 5:01 - not trying to stir the pot-the gang of three has done that well enough by themselves. It's a simple enough statement to confirm or deny that regular performance reviews of Mr Gagne's service to the town has been done or not. Certainly the 1 executive session where Gagne was asked to leave could not have been a performance review and I'm not asking about the contents of that session. Had there been performance reviews the citizen's of this town would know what Mr Gagne's strengths and weaknesses were and perhaps this forestorm could be avoided. I've heard enough (actually heard nothing) to confirm in my mind that no such reviews ahve taken place. This leads me to the conclusion that the SB makes rules for others to follow but feels they themselves need not follow them. Its a simple case of do as I say not as I do. After 20+ years of service the dignified and respectful thing to have done was not done and it speaks volumes to anyone that is not a blind devotee of 'change for the sake of change'.
I agree, Wally, but it won't be up to us, it will be up to the Great Oz--the man behind the curtain.
I recall a year or so ago when David Vincent was not reappointed to the Refuse Mgmt. District despite many voices is support of him and the work he did for Dartmouth, the (then) Select Board chairperson just said, "nothing personal, just time for a change." What's the difference now? Man is, after all, a creature of constant change, and maybe it's time to shake things up, get a plan for the town (finally) and get rid of complacency. I agreed totally with Greg Lynam's Op-Ed piece. Where I worked in industry, changes came frequently and not necessarily related to poor performance and the process certainly kept people "on their toes" and not retired in place.
I guess the Standard Times wasn't getting enough mileage out of the story so it felt the need to inflame the matter in hopes of selling more papers. It could have at least gotten the facts straight but I guess the facts won't sell more papers. It's not called the Sub-Standard Times for nothing.
No anon 9:51, I suspect enough people were upset at the manner in which this was handled that they felt compelled to write a piece about it. The comparison to Mr Vincent's service to the town is not apples to apples, a volunteer boad member and a professional employee of the town are 2 different things. If I remember correctly, there was at least some public discussion about why Mr. Vincent was not re-appointed to his committee. Mr Gagne was not even given the basic courtesy of a review. Like the paper or not, the Standard had it right this time in my opinion. I still get to have those, correct?
Wally and Disappointed, too much talk, maybe? This is not a pro/con issue that has the potential for splitting the town apart. This the opportunity to make some changes that will affect how our government is run and make our (the Dartmouth residents') voices heard. The residents would have a say in it, I would imagine, if only to make suggestions as to how the Charter could/should be changed, and what new provisions should be made.
Isn't that the goal of (most) residents: to formulate written policy that is equitable to everyone, both town/school employees and the residents themselves?
So it takes time; Rome wasn't built in a day. It sounds like because it is time-consuming, it shouldn't even begin to be attempted, at least not now. When would bea good time to start, then? It may not affect the current governing policy or people involved, but it certainly could affect future policy, and isn't that what we want? I should think that would be a good thing, and something worth fighting for.
It would be a chance for everyone to provide some input, I would think, even those diehard, "no change needed" people.
And, for what it's worth: whether or not Mr. Gagne has had performance reviews, the public is not allowed access to them. They are listed as exemptions to the Mass Public Records Law, Exemption (c) - The Privacy Exemption.
Your memory fails you about Mr. Vincent. The chair of the SB read the riot act before the meeting started, had the vote on Mr. Vincent's appointment, allowed no public comment, and then, apparently feeling cheated that no fuss was made, threatened to have Ms. Hamilton physically removed during an unrelated discussion.
The Standard Times can't even get it right that Gagne was not terminated or that according to our Charter, he is not allowed a public hearing. Pretty sad when a newspaper can't even get those facts straight.
The SB has followed the rules by not discussing what took place in executive session. You keep insisting that they violate these rules. All employees would be dealt with the same way yet you insist Mr. Gagne somehow be treated differently. The SB is following the rules according to our town charter and MA General Laws. Get over it!
I am confused by the apparent conflict I've noted when reading through this blog; letter to the editor by Mr. Lynam is ok and a good thing however an editorial by the standard times is stirring the pot and trying to sell papers? ANyone else notice the hypocrisy? Still no answer on one poster's questions about any performance reivews being done. I'm curious about that too as is the Standard Times. Seems a one way street of information is ok here. Agree with the decision or jsut be quiet and move on.
whether or not performance reviews were performed isnt executive session information.If they were discussed in executive session once its over it becomes public information.
Speaking of performance reviews, did Mr. Gagne do his job and give them to all department heads in his charge? The answer would be uh, NOOOOOOO.
Anyone notice the S-T ran two editorials ("Our View") in the space of five days, November 18th and today, November 23rd, directly or indirectly blaming the three SB members who voted for non-renewal? Today's piece even states that "There is still time to address the issue honorably, and we hope the Select Board will act so." It goes on to state that "most people are smart enough" to know that Mr. Gagne has done a good job at running the town.
n 7:23, Good Luck getting to see any executive session min.
No one has seen any in three years!
Diane G. said she never has approved any since she has been on the board.
This all came to light when people wanted to see the now famous sweetheart contracts that were suppose to be 'never ending'. That was when Big Bob Miller was on board.
big secret. Those will get lost, I'm sure.
Post a Comment