The text of the complaint can be found here. Contrary to the characterization by Mr Gagne tonight, he will be given an opportunity to respond to the suit. The service of notice and the scheduling of the hearing of the suit will be handled by the Bristol County Sheriff's Office and the Fall River Superior Court. Mr. Gagne will be given a chance to respond in court as is the right of a party in any lawsuit. For all I know, the Sheriff may not ...
... serve Mr. Gagne at all since he acknowledged that he visited the court and picked up a copy of the complaint.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Suit seeking ruling on Executive Administrator contract
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
42 comments:
Mr. Gagne sits at the meetings and acts like the poor little lamb. It is his choice to attend meetings. He has vacation time and he could take it if he feels he is the 'elephant in the room'.Poor Michael, his sweetheart contract may be void! Shame on him for not doing what was in the best interest of Dartmouth 3 years ago! Instead he took care of Michael and friends!
Will this ever have closure?
We will have closure if Michael doesn't file suit against the town he loves so much. He and Mr. Miller will never own up to the damage they have done. Neither will the other four Select Board members involved. Don't they realize that people are aware of the contracts and the failure to produce executive session minutes for years? Does Michael really think people are buying "I didn't have the time"? Michael is playing the victim. People aren't stupid. They know the implications of the minutes never being released. Mr. Miller claims there weren't any problems when he held the seat. Does he think people really believe that everything went on a downward spiral only after he left? Again, people know that some of the problems we are facing now are due to the time he spent on the board. Michael Gagne and Bob Miller need to quietly go away with what little dignity they may still have.
To gamble with the taxpayers dollars 7500 dollars and climbing is terrible. the town can barely afford ONE executive Adminstator let alone TWO and if a judge deems his contract is legal ...oh boy...more cuts are coming. If we need an interim admin. starting March 1st why not START a search committee AFTER a judge passes his judgement on the contract..We already would have an interim in place what is the RUSH! whether the interim EA is at the job a month or 6 months that is the purpose of the interim to bridge the GAP...so if we just waited to gain insight from the judge there wouldnt be any loss of money..right BILL
Wrong, anon3:34. Gagne's contract has not been renewed, period. The onus is on him to prove that he was wronged according to his contract not the other way around. I know you are used to Gagne running the Select Board instead of the other way around but those days are gone. Come the end of February Gagne is gone and we probably won't have a decision from the court yet. One more time, Gagne is GONE, get used to it. Oh and did I forget to mention that Gagne is GONE.
If the judge says his contract automatically renews the SB could always fire him. They have the votes and even his contract says he can be fired.
I guess it is OK for the town to spend to have bogus town meetings for Carney, Raposo, and Medeiros. It is OK to pay tens of thousands in lawsuit settlement. Even the insurance company wanted to take that case to court according to what I heard last night. Let me say that again, the insurance company, you know the ones that will settle out of court almost all the time, they wanted to try this case but Miller, Carney and Dias forked over the taxpayers dough. The town counsel was against it too, says Michaud
I will be so glad when we finally get a ruling on Mr. Gagne's contract. I hope it is soon, so we can move forward.
I also hope we get to the bottom of these executive session minutes. What were they thinking! Re: the contracts for 7 others and Bernier/ Hicocks!!
Bob Miller, Kathleen Horan-McLean, Dias, Carney & Leduc are responsible. And EA Michael!
What are you guys going to do if Gagne wins?
I think someone else stated it quite clearly. The Select Board can fire him. With all that is coming out about contract clauses, secret meetings, failure to release executive session minutes and insubordination, I think they have more than enough for just cause.
Yes Gagne is gone at the end of February and an interim EA will be in place, but the judge still needs to rule on the contract which could be held legal or illegal. My question was seeing that an interim EA will be in place as of march 1st what was the RUSH to appoint a search commitee and spend 7500 dollars PLUS more to come wouldn't it have been wiser to sit and wait to MAKE SURE the judge was in the favor of the SB majority. The interim is at the position anyway, so the search commitee could have been just sitting and waiting without spending money until the verdict was in then continue with the search rather than GAMBLING with TAXPAYERS money. It just doesnt make sense. PENNY WISE DOLLAR FOOLISH
It's called proper planning and is a lot less wasteful than that special town meeting we just had courtesy of Carney.
geez, you repeat the same thing over and over like Ray Medeiros. Last time. Gagne is gone because he's not up to the job and the SB knows it. Say good night, Ray
still no answer pertaining to my question, what was the RUSH..
to 1/23 10:17pm
I ma glad you used the proper term PLAN because I have been told the SB doesn't PLAN it only makes policy ..planning is Mike's Job. At least we are on the same page.
I wonder who the interim EA is going to be starting 3/1? Bill could you let us know when this will be decided?
The Executive Administrator Search Committee will be heard at Monday's Select Board meeting. They will brief the board on the progress of their activities and what plans are appropriate in the interim.
The interim administrator will probably be a part of the package from the personnel firm that we hire to find a new administrator. They do that for towns all the time. If a town has an executive who leaves, they still need to run so these firms have people who do that sort of thing. I think that will be the proposal but we will know on Monday.
thanks bill
to im not rappaport...your not to civil either...calling people derogatory names is childish and im glad ray has not stuped to your level. Cograts Ray by keep your head up and moving forward. You have reason and questions..you have the right to question these people but they do not answer you with civilty or decency. They also dont have answers PERIOD there is something in the wind keep your head high and look them in the eye
Gee, I wonder who anonymous 10:49 is? Ray or Saul. Talk about calling the kettle black! Ray & Saul have been posting disgusting comments about Diane Gilbert all along. It is not difficult to identify their comments. Saul is the "ABG anybody but gilbert" poster with all the exclamation points and nasty adjectives. Ray's are a little more subtle but usually posted right after the posts using his real name. Very sad gentlemen.
So can anybody answer the question yet? what was the RUSH..why not wait until the verict was in about the Gagne contract...an interim EA is already there so why Rush the process...and gamble with MY money
Because Gagne will be GONE BEFORE the verdict comes back and he will be GONE regardless of the verdict.
This persistant antagonizing poster reminds me of when a group of adults is accompanied by one juvenile who feels the need to be the center of the conversation yet cannot really add anything intelligent to the conversation. Eventually, one of the adults finally resorts to the old axiom "children should be seen and not heard." Can you hear me Ray?
Why hasn't my question been answered? It seems alot of people want to be heard but they will never answer a question directley...i wonder why?
How does Mike being Gone have to do with the RUSH...just sit back with the appointed committee and wait for the verdict before any money is handed out. it's called being CAUTIOUS..even if you KNOW 99% sure that the verdict will be in the Town's favor and not Mike's
Just in Case..you may be spending all kinds of money frivilously That's all I am asking...why Rush ..it isn't like the office will be Vacant an interim EA is keeping the seat warm. Mr. Michaud stated it was being prudent..I see it as a Gamble
Ray,or Saul, How much money did you waste on that special town meeting for a vindictive politically charged article that town meeting members voted to postpone indefinitely? I will copy and paste the question ad nauseum until you answer with the dollar amount.
First of all if the TM voted on the provision and worked on the amendments that night money wouldnt have been wasted..but seeing that you would like to know the cost approx. 7000..so this is about 500 dollars cheaper than this EA search already...and the EA search will be getting mor and more expensive.
I am sure Ray does not deserve being called an idiot, and Bill TRIMBLE should not allow this type of personal bashing on HIS blog. It is unprofessional and to the person who is calling him those names, which shows they are very uneducated and childish, grow up. someone has said on this blog that children should been seen and not heard..take your own advice. This type of attacks is unbecoming of an Adult. Whatever happened to civil discussion and debate. I guess the times of Dartmouth being civil are far off into it's History.
Ray, let me say this without calling you names. Your motives are transparent to those of us who are encouraging progressive change in Dartmouth town government. All of your public opinions so far have shown that you do not want to see progressive change in Dartmouth. You support retaining the executive administrator that the new Select Board has decided is not up to the task of moving us forward. You supported a vindictive, childish special town meeting warrant article that wasted taxpayer money. If it wasn't vindictive and politically motivated, then "WHAT WAS THE RUSH?" It could have been done at the spring town meeting and saved a truckload of money. Now you support anything that will delay or give your special interest group influence in the search process for a new executive administrator. Your constant posting is nothing more than an annoyance that clearly shows your desire to return to business as usual where the employees run the town. So, once again, "what was the rush to have your article placed on a special town meeting warrant that wasted $7,000(your number)?"
wally, Answer the questions that have been posted. answering questions with a question is not progress. as for a progressive dartmouth, not renewing Mike's contract is not moving the town forward. I consider the Majority of the SB's ideas as a lateral direction not progressive direction. I will oppose privatizing our town every step. That is a BAD direction. handing over my money to a corporation that will never be re circulated into our local economy again is a bad direction. Corporation are in business for Profit and not in the interest of serving our town
Mr. Medeiros has a point..look at the debaucle of the BIG DIG...a privatization DISASTER... I hope to never see Dartmouth privatized..there are other ways to save monry...consolidation of departments is an avenue that is likely..but privatization must be STOPPPED and anyone who supports privatization will never get my VOTE
How do you feel about outsourcing? What was the RUSH to have a special town meeting that cost $7,000? My feeling is that I would rather provide services in-house. However, if we are forced to have mandates like defined benefit retirement plans that make us non-competitive, then we must outsource in order to save services. Private companies offering a generous 401k retirement plan would have saved $2million last year alone. You are simply a union advocate with no regard for the best direction that taxpayers should move towards. As I stated earlier, your special interests are very transparent. You would be better served to just admit that you represent the employees and not the general population of Dartmouth. Heck, I'll admit right here that my opinions are in the best interest of the taxpayers not the employees. Why can't you just admit that you are looking out for the employees instead of trying to be deceptive?
I can't seem to get on Curt's blog.
So, Ray or whomever:
PLEASE read the Town Charter, Article 3-2, Select Board, Powers and Duties in General, subsection (b.) NOWHERE does that section say anything about a plan. The word "plan" is not even mentioned once.
Rather, the word used several times is "policy": "policy directives" and "policy guidelines."
The SB is the "chief executive OFFICE," (my caps,) NOT the executive administrator. They "formulate" and "promulgate" POLICY.
From 3-2 (b), I quote "the Select Board should act only through the adoption of broad POLICY GUIDELINES (my caps) which are to be implemented by OFFICERS and EMPLOYEES serving UNDER IT....." (my caps)
As Joe Michaud said, the SB is not to be involved in the day-to-day running of the town, and the Charter says the same.
Can we PLEASE stop this posting on who does what? READ THE CHARTER! How much clearer does it have to be?
Ray, do you have the research to prove that privatizing is a "bad direction"? One's opinion is not proof. Because you are so ready to make a statement like that I am assuming you have done all the research and are ready to give us your findings.
So what was the SB doing on thursday formulating a policy..or planning to put a policy in place? It seems to me that plan is discussed, brought forth by the EA and formulated into a policy by the CEO or selectboard. The selctboard approves the plan set forth by the EA and that plan is set into policy by the SB and implemented by the EA.
Proof..look at the BIG DIG. There is physical proof at it's best. Another is your STATE BRDGES..all privatized. Privatization is a case by case basis..it depends on the contractor and it's ability to provide the quality service and knowledge our men and women in the town already provide. Also if competition is scarce in an area to be privatized the lone contractor can charge what ever he deems necessary to make maximum profit, which by the way is the ultimate goal of all corporations. This can become an open door for sweet heart backdoor deals at Town Hall. We want to talk contracts with town employees...well the sweetheart deals will be rampant if privatization takes over.
wally, looking out for the taxpayer is more than the bottom line..it is also the quality of service provided. i am fair and balanced in my decisions, contracts should be fair to both the employer and the employee. Dartmouth unfortunately is in the hole ..not because our laborers get paid too much. Maybe we have too many departments and could be consolidated..but placing our Tax dollars in the hands of a corporation which is then in control of services just makes me cautious.
You have the cart before the horse. The SB does the policy-making and the EA brings it forth. The EA identifies the steps of the plan (brought forth) based on the directive (policy) stated by the SB.
The SB tells him what it wants done, that is, a long-term financial plan based on the defined terms of the Charter as to what is to be documented in the plan.
The EA is responsible for getting it drafted and written out according to the specifics of the Charter. By doing so, he is following the policy (direction, guideline) of the SB.
It's like an outline:
I. Policy
A. SB to determine what policy is to be (in this case, draft a long-term financial plan)
B. SB tells EA what policy is (draft long-term financial plan)
II.Executive Administrator
A. Is given policy (directive, guideline) by SB (draft long-term financial plan)
B. Determines content of plan (follows instruction in the Charter on what to include in plan)
C. Directs plan to be drafted by director of budget and finance/treasurer
D. Receives completed plan from director of budget and finance/treasurer
E. Presents completed plan back to SB
Maybe you are confused by what to call the implementation of the actual plan. I guess it does sound like the implementation of the plan should be called the policy if it is being carried out, but the policy as the Charter states it is just the actual statement from the SB to the EA of what it wants done. The SB does not tell the EA how it should be done. That's for the EA to decide. In the case of the SB's policy to have a long-term financial plan, the Charter spells it out quite thoroughly as to its content, so the EA has clear information on what the plan should include.
It's like telling your child, "Just do it because that's my rule!" You (parent/SB) tell the child (EA) what you want done, (your policy.) Maybe the policy is to clean his room before he goes out. It's now up to the child to figure out what needs to be done to fulfill your policy (clean room.) He does the figuring out how to comply with your policy of having a clean room before going out. You tell him what you want done. That's your policy. He needs to follow it by doing what needs to be done, like picking up the clutter, emptying the wastebaasket, putting his clothes away, etc.
Sorry for being so long-winded.
Maybe you should stop trying to give the actual carrying out of the policy a name. Or maybe the Charter should have just used another word, like "rules" instead of "policy."
To my previous post: A "plan" in the case of a long-term financial plan is a document that is asked for as something the SB wants the EA to do. Not every policy is a "plan," as I would see it, and someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Like the parent and child above. The parent might tell the child to keep better track of his money by keeping a budget. That's the parent's policy to keep the child from overspending and let him see where his money goes. That's an actual document, a "plan" that the parent wants to see the child write out and then wants to have the child follow the steps to saving his money by determining where to spend it and how much to spend.
The parent might tell the child it's a rule of the house (the policy) to clean up his room before he goes out. In this case, the carrying out of the policy doesn't involve an actual document or "plan." It just means doing the actual cleaning by whatever needs doing.
I hope this makes some sense. I think I have it right, but, again, if I'm mistaken maybe someone can better explain it, because there is an awful lot of confusion between the meaning of "policy" and "plan," I think, and what it is the SB and the EA are individually responsible for doing. I see it as the SB that governs (leads) and the EA follows (implements.)
And if I'm wrong, please correct me!!
I still have not seen the PROOF. Have you put any services out to bid? Do you have the numbers for the library? Or the DPW? Personally I think you have it somewhat confused. I can't see how private companies can screw us any more than town officials already have. Everything goes out to bid. If a bid is accepted then that contract does not change for the life of the contract. If at the end of that time the town is no longer happy with the terms of that contract, we do not renew it. Anytime a contract ends it should be put out to bid again to assure that we are getting the best deal possible.
Privatizing is a must as long as our state is unwilling to deal with pension reform. We cannot afford our employees. It's as simple as that. Privatizing does away with those employee costs.
By the way, I don't think you can compare Dartmouth trash collection to the Big Dig.
so Dartmouth is going to have a case by case bidding war? for example..road maintenance during the summer and plowing during the winter are these going to be seperate contracts and contractors? Are you also saying the employee are screwing the Town..how much does a DPW get ..full package? include everything
A lone contractor doesn't need to bid..but once our town privatizes we have no choice but to hire this contractor no matter what the price.
Post a Comment