Re: Select Board Agenda December 1, 2008
Dear Mr. Gagne,
Please add to the agenda for the December 1, 2008 meeting of the Select Board a discussion and vote concerning the status of the contract of the Executive Administrator.
Please post the required notice with the Town Clerk and in accordance with the statutory requirements. Should there be any questions please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Joseph L. Michaud
Chair, Selectboard
As before, I will not comment on the executive meeting discussions but as you can see, we will be having the discussion in public very soon.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Select Board will discuss Executive Administrator contract
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
66 comments:
It's a good start. Hopefully something positive will come of it.
I support the majority Select Board decision not to renew the executive administrator contract. They have shown class and restraint by commenting little until the proper process is followed. I can think of many reasons why they want to move in a new direction but why drag Mr. Gagne through the mud? It would be better for Gagne to leave with praise and a good reference as opposed to a laundry list of reasons for non-renewal. Either way, he will be leaving.
Now is time for Mr. Gagne to do honorable deed.
Zen
The only reason that the Select Board has agreed to have a public discussion of this matter is because of the public outcry about the secretive way that Mr. Gagne was fired. His detractors can call it "non-renewal of contract" all they want, but the truth is that he is being fired. If there were no complaints about this process, we would not have heard another word from the three-member majority of the Select Board.
There is nothing secretive about it. It's called executive session and the employee's right to privacy. I propose that from now on all employees have a public hearing to discuss their contracts or positions. The public will be allowed to air all opinions regarding each employee and his or her job performance. What's good for one should be good for all. How about it town employees? Sound good?
You know that's a red herring argument Anon 1:28. This is the top position for our town and the man that has held that position for 22 years is widely respected within and without the town. There should have been performance reviews done, any shortcomings with Gagne's performance identified and at the very least he should have been given a chance to make corrections. Instead, we have, druing the most trying financial times in recent history the abrupt removal of the administrator. This after many changes have already been made to improve Dartmouth's position in many areas. So yes, many people are upset at the way this has been handled.
Barring some new information I expect the SB's position to stand. If do I would hope the SB wastes no time in identifying what they want in a new administrator, how they plan to land the right person and how much they plan to set for a salary range.
In this case, executive session is being used as an excuse not to operate in view of the public. Mr. Gagne WANTS a public hearing; it is the Select Board that has resisted holding a public hearing. Furthermore, the Select Board has failed to make any sort of meaningful statement about the changes ("new direction") that it seeks for the town.
Wha...huh. Gagne's contract is not going to be renewed. Read the paper. That decision is done. How exactly does the manner in which it has transpired changed anything. If Gagne had any sense, he would realize he is not wanted and resign. Now his buddies can get up and say what a great guy he is and his enemies get a license to stick in the knife and twist. Doesn't change a thing. He outta there come March.
According to the town charter Mr. Gagne is not entitled to a public hearing. We can't change the rules just for him or is that what you would like the SB to do? Then you can rant & rave that they didn't follow the rules.
Michael has been given time to make corrections. 22 years worth of time. The SB requested a plan. They didn't get one. The SB requested executive session minutes be made public. They didn't get them. As I see it the whole point of executive session meetings regarding employees is to respect employees' privacy. How would you feel if your contract/job negotiations were put out there for everyone to see and read about? Would you want your incompetence aired for all to see? That is what you are asking for Mr. Gagne. Reasons why his contract is not being renewed splattered all over the newspapers and spreading like wildfire around the town.
I've been to many SB meetings and watched most on TV- can't recall ever hearing the SB ask specifically for Exec Session meetings to be released or any specific complaints about Gagne's performance. Maybe I missed it.
I also think a lot of people feel this was handled poorly by the selcet board. That means something too beyond the specifics of this particular case. I know it's easily dismissed but the way the SB has gone about this is wrong in many people's view. Of course it's easy to shout them down which seems to be the preference of many.
I honestly don't know if things were done "right" or "wrong." That is for the attorneys to determine. However, one thing I do find interesting: there are some people who will not accept a majority decision.
This issue is not unlike the override for the schools. Some people could not accept "no" for an answer, and continued to demand a second override, blamed those opposing the override to the point of even being malicious in some instances, and pretty much demanded an overturn of the majority vote.
The select few whose opinions have been published in the S-T or who have posted seem, in most instances, to be of the same vein.
No, I dont see it as being similar to the override questions at all. I, and many others feel the SB handled this issue inappropriately simple as that. What changed direction are we looking for? No one likes having budget defitcits thats for sure but is that the fault of one man who happened to be the executive administrator for the town? If so man that's a lot of responsibility for one person to shoulder. Will the replacement be tasked with changing that situation? Will excise taxes suddenly return to pre recession levels? Will new growth suddenly take hold (even though many in town want no new growth)when the replacement is appointed, thus bringing our tax base higher? Will the replacement suddenly be able to convince our town employees to absorb in excess of the 50% they are already paying on their health insurance - an altered package that saved the town some $550k last year due in no small part to the efforts of our outgoing exec administrator? Will our stabilization fund grow once again as it has the previous 2 years - the sour economy notwithstanding?Will the replacemetn be able to maintain the confidence evidenced by the DOR in their recent audit of the town? Or will the replacement simply say (s)he willnever ask for a penny more in taxes, perhaps that's all it will take.
Is Dartmouth an island immune from the realities of the nation and world?
Bill , There is a letter to the Standard Times today Wed Nov 26,2008 . The letter alleged that the Select Board has only "a few special interest" . The writer is a member of the Board of Assessors and Capital Improvement Board and is Prudential Committee chairman for Fire District 1.This sounds like a town official . This offical should come forward with the knowledge they have of the "few special interest" . Who are the special interest ? Keep in mind this is no figure of speech this is a written allegation!
The url containing the letter is next ;
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081126/OPINION/811260331/-1/NEWS
What changed direction? How about a plan for the town??? No one has said Mr. Gagne is responsible for the economy. What we are saying is that Mr. Gagne should have had a financial plan in place which is part of his job description according to the charter. Now why is it Michael is immune to the rules of the charter? I have heard Ms. Gilbert ask several times for the executive session minutes and so has Bill.
I think you are missing my point. As I stated, I don't know if anything was done inappropriately or not. That is not for me, nor you, nor anyone in the public to decide. That will be worked out by the attorneys, the SB, and anyone else directly involved in it.
My reference to the override is that there were people who simply could not accept the first "no" vote, or for that matter, not even the second "no" vote. I believe a resident even demanded that a special town meeting be held because those voting against the override were "confused" and needed to be educated in the error of their ways so that they would understand their need to change their vote to "yes."
As far as what changed direction a new executive administrator will take us, or the consequences of his/her decisions and actions, neither you nor I know. For that matter, we do not even know what the new direction is, and that I will agree with anyone on. We have not been told it, and perhaps we have no right to know until the time is legally right to do so.
We don't know any of the specifics: not the qualifications sought for a new executive administrator; nor his/her expected education level; nor his/her experience, leadership, managerial and employment background. We have no idea, so we really can't form an intelligent opinion on how well-suited and effective this individual would be, can we?
I'm not hearing anyone blaming the entire financial crisis in Dartmouth on Mr.Gagne. I do hear that there could and should have been better planning on his part, however. Just as you and I plan for an unexpected financial crisis in our own lives as best we can when we see that we might be heading for one and have in place the different options open to us to address the worst case scenario if we encounter it, so shouldn't our Town have just such a plan as well. That is the mandate of the Charter.
This will always be a low point in the history of Dartmouth government.
A good and decent man who has worked both hard and smart for the Town for 22 years is being let go by a bad lawyer, an egotist and a demagogue. How on earth did Dartmouth ever elect such poor Select Board members?
They will not find anyone better than Mike Gagne. But they will get their almighty plan. I predict much balleyhoo over the almightyplan. But there will be little, if any benefit from it.
I suppose among other things, the almighty plan will have to identify things to be cut if budget shortfalls continue. And, if I understand correctly, these pre-planned cuts will be based on various projected shortfall percentages going forward as much as three to five years.
Again, among other things, that means the almighty plan will have to identify people presently working for the Town of Dartmouth who will lose their jobs next year, in two years, in three years, in four years or in five years if budget shortfalls match pre-planning projections. After all, the Town's budget is labor intensive.
That should be interesting. I wonder how those identified workers will react to knowing these three Select Board members have targeted them to lose their jobs under the almighty plan?
What do you get when you take a well-run Town and mix in a collection of holier-than-thou know-it-alls? You get a bad lawyer, an egotist and a demagogue fully empowered to screw up a well-run Town.
I hope they lose their jobs and clients. Their employers and clients should sismply express a desire to go in a different direction. How sweet would that be! As for the one that doesn't work (married into money, don't you know), hopefully the stock market will deliver a negative impact similar to what Mike Gagne will experience. Hey, what's good for Gagne is good for them. Fair's fair!
I will forever be bitter toward these three for what they have done. They are buffoons.
While I disagree with how the 3 SB members have handled this issue and agree with many points made above, I harbor no ill will towards any of them so I have to part company with you there. I think they are doing what they believe to be the right thing for for Dartmouth and have put themselves out there as elected volunteers even though I think they are wrong on this issue. I'll leave it at that.
It is a person's attitude like that that makes the possibility of a positive change prohibitive, unless that change is to the liking of the individual him/herself.
Too bad some people have to be so bitter.
This is not not the end of the world . Maybe it's time for change . People do not like change . Change is good . Here's a quote from the newspaper that makes it sound like this is the end of the earth as we know it ;
"Mr. Gagne had hoped for a formal hearing in which he or his attorney could cross-examine speakers, but as of this writing, it was not to be. Still, the board should seek the fullest possible discussion — not to satisfy a legal requirement, but for the sake of good government."
This is a turning point for Dartmouth. Change only comes after a situation becomes so bad that people decide they want the alternative, even though it is the 'unknown'. Change is not easy and most want to stay with the status quo. Over the last 8 years, I have heard a growing number of residents complain about those at the top of our town government. I thought everything was just fine until I became a town meeting member. After that I also started attending other town meetings and found out first hand just how incompetent Mike Gagne and Ed I. really are. Until that time, I thought they were great! I support the three select board members for doing something that might not seem very popular right now, but it is the right thing for Dartmouth. I will not be writing any letters to the standard Times about how I want Mike Gagne and Ed I. replaced. I don't have to do that because my elected officials are finally doing their job. Thanks, I know it's not easy.
Why can't and when will people - - - and a newspaper,especially - - - not accept a majority vote? What happened to the democratic way where majority rules? If there is an issue, it could well be the "propriety," "legality," or "consideration" of the individual involved, and the legality of the issue is yet to be resolved, I believe.
In the meantime, why should it even be a consideration, let alone a demand, that Mr. Gagne get a public hearing when it is not even determined by Mr. Sutter's office that he is entitled to one?
This just seems to be pandering to the crowd of Mr. Gagne's supporters. I am not negating their opinions, nor am I stating otherwise that he has dedicated his life to the town and has done much good in and for it. That still is no cause to consider rescinding the SB majority vote, and it does a great disservice to the democratic process of MAJORITY RULE. And the newspaper of all entities should know that and abide by it rather than stirring the pot and printing the "questionable" (I won't use the word that perhaps more aptly applies to its action) headlines it has with regard to the decision of Ms. Gilbert, Mr. Trimble, and Mr. Michaud in voting to not renew Mr. Gagne's contract.
"Our View" or not, for a newspaper to be so blatantly biased in characterizing the issue and the majority-voting SB members involved is, at least in my opinion, less-than-professional for a newspaper to print.
I sincerely hope the SB has not called this meeting under pressure from Mr. Gagne's supporters. That would truly show a lack of spine. And more so, especially, if they do rescind their vote.
In response to Anon 11:04 -- A vote by 3 of 5 Select Board members is, indeed, a majority; however, that does not preclude criticism by the Standard-Times or Dartmouth residents. The democracy that you seem to be touting is one where the Tyranny of the Majority is the rule-of-the-day; all those who disagree had better sit-down and shut-up.
You may disagree with me, and I with you; but we both have the right to voice our views regardless of decisions made at any level of government.
Hopefully, the public discussion to be held on December 1 (even if not a formal "hearing") will help us all understand the Select Board's decision.
I wouldn't want to be Michaud, Gilbert or Trimble right now. They're in for a rough evening on Monday. There are people who don't even know Mike Gagne who are planning to attend and speak against the three who voted him out. It appears they failed to grasp how many people in town believe Mike Gagne has done a good job for Dartmouth. Most of them have never been active in town affairs. They have awakened a sleeping giant and now they'll have to explain to everyday folks why they want to get rid of someone who has done such a good job.
Is there a recall provision in Dartmouth's charter?
I guess what I don't understand on the blogs is the intolerance of a dissenting opinion. Many people have been satisfied with Gagne and do not blame him for the financial problems the town is facing. They are surprised and upset at the way this was done and are voicing their opinion in various ways either thru letters or blog posts. They have every right to voice their concerns without being told they should get out of the way or be quiet. I'm happy more people are finally paying attention.
I am by no means negating anyone's having a differing viewpoint from mine, and I am not telling anyone to "sit-down and shut-up." I am simply surprised with the insistence that there be the opportunity for a rethinking of the vote, and, for that matter, that all this be dragged out in the public eye, at least at this time, since the meeting is not yet officially through Mr. Sutter's office, a necessary event.
Do/should we we demand a recount if we are not happy with the majority choice of the people in their election of a president? Yet we seem to be going overboard in our insistence on a hearing. Frankly, I do not believe Mr. Gagne is "guilty" of anything in particular, or for anything at all, for that matter. I merely believe that more could and should have been done. If there is a rescinding of the vote, so be it. I cannot change anyone's mind and I will not get up on a soap box to do so.
It is too bad we are not apprised of the reason for the SB's decision. Perhaps if that were able to be made public, much of this controversy over the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the vote would be eliminated. I think a hearing is premature, lacking a reason from the SB. That is my opinion only.
I am also surprised at the S-T's vehement reaction to the SB's decision. You are right, of course: it is within the SB's right to print whatever they choose, and it is most definitely its democratic right, as it is your right and mine to have differing opinions. Perhaps I should have said that if it were me writing the "Our View" piece, I would have written it a little differently, and, perhaps, even said the same thing. (Tactfully, that's the word.)
Hind sight being what it is I keep thinking how this might have been done better seeing the reaction this has stirred. Like many things I think it comes back to communication, or lack of communication. As I stated earlier I've been to many SB meetings and watched the ones I could not attend on TV. There were times where pointed questions were asked of the Exec Admin, some complaints (many from FinCom) about lack of detail or why some things were not anticipated but just as often the exec admin would come to the next meeting better prepared or with the answers requested. The 'team' would invariably continue to work forward to try and solve the various issues the twon faced. It seemed to me progress was being made. Not a straight line progress more side to side but generally forward. The sudden reversal of this positive trend caught many by surprise, me included. The suddeness of this action after the past few months of generally positive efforts I think is what has stirred the response we see.
Right or wrong? I don't know, just unfortunate in my opinion. Would it have been better to have had a series of public meetings to discuss with the townspeople what 'direction' we should be pursuing and were we as a town on the right path to achieve that direction. Again, I don't know. Given the divisions in town maybe it would have just been an exercise in futility anyways.
I hope by next year at this time we will see it was the right decision, I hope it is but I'm not sure.
The vote has been taken, the decision has been made, Monday night not be the end of it. The SB will vote not to renew Gagne's contract again. It doesn't matter if their statements Monday are convincing or not, those who support "business as usual" will cry foul. No matter if they accept it or not, Gagne is done in Dartmouth.
Yep. And then one at a time, Gilbert, Michaud and Trimble will go.
Sounds vindictive.
sounds like a town employee who is afraid he is next.
Gilbert will be the first to go. Don't be surprised when ABG! bumper stickers start showing up around town. ANYBODY BUT GILBERT!
She is the most divisive person to ever hold elected office in Dartmouth. Like "Pig Pen" in the old Peanuts cartoons, there is always a cloud of dirt swirling around her. The only difference is, people liked Pig Pen. She will be easy to defeat.
How sweet would it be if Gagne were to run against her? Oh yeah, you gotta love that scenario!
Oh please someone print ANYBODY BUT GILBERT bumper stickers as I would love one of those!!!
I have been told directly (personally) that Ms. Gilbert Will NOT be seeking re-election. Mr. Carney has announced publically he will NOT seek re-election either.
As for this Gagne mess, I have worked with him on some projects and have found him very slow at responding and making progress. Although I must admit there were higher priorities, so its not 100% his fault. There are so many hours in a day. I recall during budget time the issue of salary came up (both Mike G & Ed I.) make over
100K per year, many said this was WAY to high. So perhaps this might be one of the "new direction" the SB is considering. Ill admit the DOR did say their pay was average in comparison to other municipalities. I do wish the SB would come out and communicate with the voters about their intentions on OUR town. They (the SB) should also remember every spring, we, the taxpayers can have a "new direction".
Im reminded, didnt Ms Gilbert run for office stating she would expose the corrupt within our town gov't? Didn't she also say she should expose the back-door dealings? so..did she find anything?
Wait, the back-door deal she authored to avoid a town meeting vote (which was deemed inappropriate by town atty Savistano in writing) in obtaining the Akin House at taxpayers expense (so far 485K..and there will be more spending next year)
I often question "Dartmouth Pride", I on occassion find myself not filled with pride at the way things go in town.
On a lighter note, high PRAISE for Police Chief Pacheco. He secured the funds for the mall traffic details again ! at NO taxpayer expense..yet we benefit ! Thanks Chief !
Does the local news pick a favorite ? Everyday there are up to four different negative SB swipes a day in the news about Dartmouth and how the Town of Dartmouth should be run . There is no balanced story about the Dartmouth Town Charter and the elected members of the (SB) Select Board that govern the town .
Lets look at the news today : There are a string of fires starting at a former state reps house in Freetown on Nov 1 the fires have continued into New Bedford over the past few weeks .There are no news stories today 11/28/08. There are four items about Dartmouth today !
The public needs both sides of the story . The (SB) Select Board has its hands tied under the open meeting laws while the other side gets to throw all the punches !
Is there a way I can vote against Gilbert even if she doesn't run? Perhaps I will write in "ANYBODY BUT GILBERT!"
Arrogant, rash and secretive decision making with no regard to the opposing view of Dias and Carney. This is made absolutely clear by the fact that Gagne was given no warning and no period of time to make the changes in course (whatever they are) that need to be made. I can only hope that if Sharek gets the town manager position, Gagne will get a seat on the select board and give him, Bill and Michaud hell.
What do you figure the new salary will be? The current salary is average yet some say it's way too high? WHo are these people? What is considered too high for a own with a budget of $70m? Should the new appointee get an assistant? Why is it the argument always gets made that salaries are too high when there is no proof that this is so? If I make $80k and Gagne makes $118k why should I care? If I want that kind of dough I should figure out how to earn it instead of complaining about someone who is earning it. If the SB comes out and says the 'new direction' is towards a lower salary I'll be even more shocked than I was when this new direction was taken.
If Steve Sharek ends up with the job, you'll know this whole thing was planned from the beginning.
The Hathaway Road Gang at work!
The town will have a budget shortfall of over $800K next year using the numbers agreed upon by the current administration and adopted by the SB and FinComm. Have you seen a plan from the administrator for how he will deal with that? A good manager would be planning now for that contingency which is only a few moths away. That shortage will probably be much larger since it includes no pay increases for anyone employed by the town. The fact that we are not moving to address this is reason enough to make a change in managers.
The people who think Gilbert ,Trimble and Michaud will be voted out because of this crack me up. You are the vocal minority. The silent majority voted Trimble in by a landslide and are now dancing in their living rooms like those Irish dancers that were popular for awhile. Remember, the story was that the Irish weren't allowed to dance so they would keep their upper bodies straight while moving their feet and legs a lot. Anyone looking in their windows couldn't tell they were dancing but they were.
It's a vision, all the way around!
The response to the budget shortfall was discussed ad infinitum last spring. Every department head laid out their plans for how they would deal with shortfalls in their budgets. Those plans were coordinated by Gagne and discussed on DCTV as well as several open house forums and the library open house days befor the vote. The plans this year will not be much different. We were also told last spring that the overrides would not cure everything and that if the 'sustainability' override did not pass we would be back in a deficit position within a year. Guess what? We are exactly where we were told we would be. Insufficient revenue means services will be cut, this in addition to the changes that have already been made to lessen the costs of doing business.
People seem to have very selective memories when they only what to hear one thing.
The only question and the simple answer is the Select Board can meet in Executive Session MGL Chapter 39, S.23B,(2) on Monday night and the person under discussion has had 48 hours notice. End of argument .
Buddy Baker-Smith wrote an outstanding letter to the editor that is published in today's Standard-Times. Everyone should take the time to read it.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081128/OPINION/811280308
The letter was well done . There has been a lot of propaganda in the news in favor of the executive administrator. There is so much propaganda you would think the job should pay double what it does.
The point is what if a month ago the almighty executive administrator notified the town they were leaving . What then? The town would fall on its face? Its time to take back the town!
Frank1 - if you are under the belief that people are simply upset about the legalities of Executive Session issues I think you are mistaken. The letters in the paper on on this and other blogs tells me many people believe the problem is not Micheal Gagne's job performance. Call the letters propaganda or whatever you like, it does not change the fact that people are angy about how this matter was dispatched.
I for one hope the SB has there own plan about getting the right person in this job and post haste too. I can pretty much guarantee the replacement wont come much if at all cheaper. And I really hope the reason for the non-renewal is not about salary issues.
Those of us with good memories also recall it was claimed that the override would provide time for changes to be made so that the town didn't end up in the same place a year later. Now you say that the same measures will be needed next year. We are right back where we were a year ago but now pay $2.1 million more in taxes. You say the problem is that we don't pay even more taxes. I say the town hasn't done anything to prevent it. That's pitiful and if it is true, the employees deserve to be let go. And if nothing more is done, even more employees will go next year and the year after. And I say good riddance!
FinCom stated several times that the overrides were temporary measures and that if the sustainability override was not passed we would be in the same spot in a year. The changes that are being contemplated would take more than 1 year to implement and the point of the sustainability question was to allow the various overrides to span 2 - 3 years. There was a lot of talk about building the sustainability money into each override question but the ultimate recommendation to provide as much 'transparency' as possible so the sustainability question was made a stand alone option. It failed we are precisely where fincom, and others,said we would be. There is no mystery. This was predicted over and over again. There will be more cuts and changes to the way services (the ones that are left) are provided. People don't want to hear that, its only human nature after all, and would rather look to blame or cast fault on a person(s) for he problems we continue to face. Services are not cheap although we like them to be ever cheaper, unfortunately it never works that way. Cuts will be coming and we now have a captainless ship. I hope the SB has their own 'plan' to continue to move us forward. Would like to have another DOR audit in say a year from now and see how the State feels about Dartmouth's prospects.
Nothing substantial has been done since the override to prevent next year's deficit. That's the point. Those defending the current administration always have an excuse. We are right back where we were a year ago, nothing has been changed except a tax hike. If there is a plan to change anything, we haven't seen it. The administration is not helpless in this, they are feckless.
In today's Standard-Times there is yet another letter from a serious-minded, considered and involved member of our community - Gerard M. Koot. There has been a constant flow of letters from people of substance stating strong support for Mike Gagne based on his competence and performance. Virtually every one of these letters also expressed dismay at the actions of Michaud, Trimble and Gilbert.
Perhaps even more poignant was this question put forth in a letter published today from Dartmouth resident, Dorothy C. LaFlamme: "What does it mean when people who have done a good job are let go?"
Let's follow the lead of Anonymous 4:51, who said... "Nothing substantial has been done since the override to prevent next year's deficit."
What better reason is there to get rid of Michaud, Gilbert and Trimble. Thank God Gilbert has stated she won't seek re-election. Look at the mess she's gotten the Town into? And she's done it with the compliant help of Trimble and Michaud.
Can a member of the Dartmouth Select Board be recalled? Why wait for Gilbert to simply let her term end? Send her and the other two a message - recall her now! For that matter, recall the three of them now. Like Anonymous 4:51 stated in his post, the three of them haven't done anything "... since the override to prevent next year's deficit." Join forces with Anonymous 4:51 - get the three of them out of there. Now!
The news article today looks like it was written by a sophmore in high school (Dartmouth High School ) .Did they start a letter writing club at the school? This was the bottom line of the letter : "If it fails to rehire Mr. Gagne, I strongly suspect that the board will come to regret its decision in the near future."
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081129/OPINION/811290317/-1/NEWS
Anon 4:51 - you are wrong plain and simple. Many things have been done to soften the blow of the current economic crisis. A major accomplishment has been to get town employees to switch to a different health plan that alone saved the town some $520+k last year. Another accomplishment that will bear fruit in the years to come has been to align contracts to a coordinated end period for all bargaining units. Task forces have been assigned to evaluate privatizing many things in town as well as re-writing personnell policies. The town has substantially increased its stabilization fund and will do so again this year barring any new crisis. So when people say nothing has changects they are not being truthful or are simply ignorant of the facts.
I'll say it again, we were warned many times this financial problem would take years to remedy and was not going to go away with one small override, so when you say this should not be happening you are again not being honest. As far as taxes going up you are wrong again. My taxes today are lower than they were two years ago thanks to the decision to adopt the split tax rate another chnge in government implemented within the last year.
So say what you want about who is writing letters to the paper - many have been from respected community leaders, I voted for 2 of the 3 SB members responsible for this decision but I can tell you they will not be getting my vote again if they decide to run. This was a bad decision done in haste and should be re-considered.
Look at the facts, by their own admission, the town administrators know the town will be short $800,000 in next year's budget. They have done nothing about it. Task forces, what task forces? Complete BS. Nothing has been done! Even if zero is given for raises, $800,000 in the red. Nothing is being done! Rewriting personnel bylaws, worthless. Nothing will be done! Your taxes are not lower. Average residential tax bill in 07, $2190, avg in 09, $2231. Warning my @$$, the taxpayers are not voting for an override. The SB has made a good start here. More will follow. $800,000 worth of follow, do you get it now!
The way I see it, Mike Gagne is a nice man and certainly knows a lot about Dartmouth (after 22 yrs., he should) but he has not grown with the town. This is the age of computer technology. Why is it that someone had to point that out to him in getting our town website on board. He has never learned about the different ways that technology could be used to streamline work in the town. We should have been paying dog lic., beach stickers, taxes, all online a long time ago. There are always going to be some people who are not able to go online and there should be one person at town hall who collects all the money.
In the private sector, who has a secretary anymore? Mike Gagne was stuck in how things have always been done, not willing to learn new technology and run things differently. Nice guy...but, Time for new eyes...
Twenty-two years is too long.
In fact Anon 9:51 my tax bill IS lower than it was in 2007, by $62 actually. The average tax bill by your numbers shows an increase of $41 over 2 years or about 1%/year-not even the 2 1/2% permitted by prop 2 1/2%, and no factoring for inflation. Not a bad deal by any measure.
You can ignore the specific items I listed if you want, does not make them go away however. As far as your dismissal of measures underway, nothing happens overnight and many things takes time to implement but you choose to dismiss that too. Again the $800k is no surprise to anyone paying attention, more cuts will come, people will still complain they are paying too much the town will continue its downward spiral until we are no different than the surrounding cities that struggle with inadequate services, porr education, and increased dependence on state and federal assistance. I hope I am wrong but in 5-10 years Dartmouth will not resemble the place it was less than 2 years ago. Those that don't like the direction will make decisions that will further accelerate the decline. It's happened elsewhere and Dartmouth is not immune. Like I said I hope I am wrong but fear I am not.
Our difference lies in that you and Mike Gagne think that nothing can be done, at least three members of the SB and myself think that there are.
Nowhere did I state that I thought nothing can be done and I dont believe Gagne ever stated such either.
I believe in term limits. We need a change, new thoughts and ideas. I ask the selectboard not to change their votes regarding Mr Gagne's contract.
How weird would it be if they did change their vote? Who will you trust then?
I wouldn't trust them. But at least I'd regain a bit of respect for them.
I don't understand that. You wouldn't trust them, but you'd respect them a bit? Why? Because they changed their vote, and, I'm guessing that is what you would like to see happen, which is fine. But if they did change their vote this time, what is to say they won't change their vote again, particularly under public pressure, perhaps, on some other issue? Flip-flopping is not the basis for trusting someone's word. How can you say you would trust someone under those conditions?
As far as I'm concerned, at least, and I am just one person, until it is proven to me that the SB did something illegal or out-of-the bounds of our Charter, etc., then I am assuming the SB knew what it was doing. I don't think it was handled as well as it could have been, and I frankly think there should have been no comments until the appropriate time, but I do realize Mr. Gagne brought the issue to the press, so maybe there was little else that could have been done. I don't know.
The greater issue here is the reason for the SB's decision. I have my thoughts as do you, and I'm sure not everyone will be pleased at the outcome. But that's the democracy we have fought for in our country.
Yep and being allowed to voice one's displeasure at elected officials for poor decisions is another reason we fought for democracy.
Well said, 10:46.
That's funny because not too long ago when some people were voicing their displeasure with town officials, you accused of them of causing mistrust and confusing the public with misinformation. Now when you want to voice your displeasure you call it your democratic right.
Post a Comment