The Standard Times has an article by Curt Brown today about the protection clauses in employee contracts. Link here. The paper also has published the letter from a Boston law firm that, while providing language for the contract clause, strongly advises against it. Read that letter here Joe Michaud has asked the Executive Administrator for more information on the matter. You can read his letter here
I have asked Mr. Gagne for the minutes of the meetings where these contracts were discussed many months ago. I have never received them ...
...despite having made a Public Records request which requires a response within ten days. I have personal knowledge that others have asked for them as well. Seems that despite continuing interest in this matter, Mr. Gagne has never made the slightest effort to prepare the documents that were requested. He is quoted in the paper as saying he can't remember who saw the letter from the Boston firm. Mr. Gagne went on at some length at the last Select Board meeting assuring the Select Board and community the he takes copious notes at these sessions and that they have been preserved.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Who and Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
It sure looks like Mr. Gagne's reputation as Mr. Nice Guy is crumbling all around him. Mr. Gagne, you don't remember who saw the letter? Isn't it your job to make sure that all five board members see things like that? Gee Mike, Atty. Savastano didn't get a copy either? Mike, if you realyy try to jog your memory, do you think you could remember who the two select board members were that were at the meeting along with you and Doris Copley when these clauses were requested? Or will the two select board members rtemain as those who shall not be named?
you know I asked this a while ago and never recieved an answer. What is so bad about these clauses? how have these 8 contracts bankrupted the town? how does a clause that says you need just cause for replacing someone be so incredibly harmful that recalls and such are starting? just tell me please. there were no extra wages or extra benefits, you just needed a valid reason to not renew someone.
anon 9:33 - it odes not matter to the lynch mob that sees this as their vindication. I guess it's good to know that with all this now fully exposed our path to solvency will so much clearer.
One reason they are so bad is that they exemplify secretism and cronyism. Nobody got copies of the lawyer's letter saying how they were not in the best interest of the town? This was the lawyer who was asked to write the clauses saying that these were no good for the town. If you read the lawyers warnings, if the town eliminates any of these positions, they could easily end up with overpaid managers in different positions just to protect the cronies.
Even if you think that the Executive Administrator should have this language (which is specifically contrary to the Town Charter.) What possible reason is there to include that language in the paralegal 's contract? Or the building inspector's, or the Harbormaster's? This was obviously done to protect those employees interests. The Personnel Board and others have pointed out that the town gets nothing by inclusion of this clause. The employee can leave at any time. The only party giving up rights is the town and what did they get for it?
why would the position of head of the dept be eliminated? If thats the case why are we looking for a new executive administrator or police chief? you dont eliminate those positions without eliminating the dept first.
It sure looks like these clauses were used to protect political appointees and make it more difficult to make any kind of changes going forward. Changes that clearly need to be made.
Let's cut to the chase. We all know that Doris Copley is Bob Miller's not-so-secret squeeze and that is why the clause came to be.
OK, if they are to protect department heads, why wasn't the Police Chief included? Why wasn't the head of the library included? Why wasn't the head of the COA included? This is exactly what it appears to be, the Executive Administrator and at least two Select Board members (care to speculate who?) were looking to protect their pals. Why? Don't tell me that the paralegal is that important!
I think what we're missing here is that the highly-paid lawyer from the big Boston law firm was the one (according to today's article) who drafted the language for a hefty charge to the town. Then he sends a letter to the town to tell them that they might want to change that language, which I'm sure he would have been pleased to do for yet another exorbitant fee. Why did mister high-paid Boston lawyer not know what the language said when it was being drafted. Looks like the only winners here will be the lawyers.
Disappointed that you did not read the letter from the Boston lawyer where he tries to say that the clauses are not a good idea. But then says if Copley, Gagne and two un-named Select Board members want to do it, here is the wording. My bet is that the two are Miller and Dias.
Disappointed, I think you may have misunderstood. If you will read Mr. Bartulis' letter at Bill's link, you will find that his February 23, 2006, letter to Mr. Gagne had two parts: the first is his letter with his warning that the protective language that Ms. Copley asked for and Mr. Gagne, Mr. Iacaponi, and two unnamed Select Board members approved, would not afford the Town an escape clause in the event it wished to no longer employ any of the (8) individuals who were to get these provisions in their contracts. Mr. Bartulis was quite explicit in his warnings.
The second part of the letter was the enclosure, which was the actual language he drafted at the request of Ms. Copley, with approval by MG. EI, and the two SB members.
Mr. Bartulis stated that he was only writing this language and making the changes to Ms. Copley's contract, only, as this was the only one he received to work on, although he understood that the language might be included in other contracts as well, which it was.
In the letter, Mr. Bartulis also told Mr. Gagne that should the Town want to include an escape clause that would allow it to not renew these contracts, he would be willing to draft language to that effect.
Apparently Mr. Gagne and the others did not feel such language was necessary, as none was written in and now we see the financial/legal mess we find ourselves in as a result.
I don't think Mr. Bartulis is the bad guy here, as he appears to be giving Mr. Gagne and the others definitive warning abouth the consequences of their actions and they chose to ignore it, as far as I can see.
Disappointed, also, Mr. Bartulis did not sign off on these contracts ("approved as to form.") Anthony Savastano, town counsel, did.
In fairness to Atty. Savastano, and I have been pretty hard on him in the past, he was not privy to the opinion by Atty. Bartulis(at least that is what he claims). It was also the first thing he was asked to do as town counsel. He may have made a mistake but it is pretty clear that the ones who were really not looking out for the best interest of the town were Gagne, Copley, and the two unnamed select board members. Gagne must be publicly pressured to release the identity of the two unnamed select board members.
I am not faulting Atty. Savastano. I have heard, too, that he was new on the job as our counsel at the time of these contracts. Who knows how it went down, so I would never claim to judge or make assumptions about his participation in the circumstances surrounding these contracts. Seems like now he is caught in the middle.
It would be extremely interesting to find out if the entire SB was privy to the information contained in Atty. Bartulis' letter.
I'm disappointed I didn't read Mr. Bartulis' letter before posting my comment. As they used to say on SNL . . . never mind . . .
Aren't we beating a dead horse. So you have another lawyers opinion. is there any real hope of solving our crisis without major layoffs, disruption of services and fee hikes or an override? Who is the visionary to lead us through this new territory. No one seems to want to take the lead or the blame.
There may not be "any real hope of solving our crisis" without all these drastic measures, as you say. But, I for one, would like to know the circumstances and the players involved in these sweetheart contracts. If they are not named, we stand the risk of having these individuals, unnamed, continuing to run our town and our finances still further into the ground. And who will be gaining from their need for so-called "protection"?
I imagine they just might be upset with having all this come to light with more likely to come. They may well have counted on the town's residents to never find out and/or maybe not care or understand the ramifications of their actions. What we don't know won't hurt us" philosophy on their part.
Thanks, Joe, Bill, and Diane. Now you three we need in our town!!
One very important reason for finding out who the two SB members were is because one may still be on the board and if I'm right another will be running in April. We don't want to elect him again. Also it is very important to know if the other three SB members had knowledge of the Boston law firm's letter. If so then they are as much to blame as the other two. If they were not presented with the information then I believe the blame would lie with Michael for not making it available to them. Keeping the SB informed is part of his job.
Miller & Horan, those were the two present during the meeting according to Mike G.
Why didnt someone just ask him who was there..he was there..
What kind of lawyer is Horan-McLean that she didn't see the red flag in the Boston lawyer's letter!! Maybe she didn't see it? Maybe it wasn't her, maybe it was Leduc.. Anyway , Nat can just call her old buddy SB members and ask them! I hope Joe, Diane, and Bill ask Mr. Gagne again at the next SB meeting. The public deserves to know. After all, we paid for it!!
Post a Comment