I want to start out my series of posts with a letter on February 23rd, 2006 from Attorney Bartulis to the Executive Administrator, Micheal Gagne. Mr. Bartulis had been in a long correspondence with the Dartmouth town paralegal, Ms. Doris Copley, about her employment contract. First, let me point out that although the town was paying for Mr. Bartulis, as you will see, he was asked to present contracts which favored the employees. Most of the corerspondence was directly with Ms Copley. The executive sessions minutes for the Select Board only mention discussion of these contracts by the Board twice, one of those being when the contracts were signed. The two Select Board members that Att'y Bartulis mentions ...
... in the Feb. 23rd letter are Mr. Robert Miller (currently running to return to the Select Board) and Ms. Natalie Dias (Ms. Dias has denied being at this meeting but Att'y Bartulis' notes put her there).
Attorney Bartulis warns against including the automatic renewal langauge in the employee contracts. Attorney Barulis notes, "Assuming this same language was in a number of different contracts in the Town, the Town could have a staff of potentially over-paid individuals doing less important management jobs, conceivably, just because the Town agreed not to let them go without just cause. Virtually every contract, even the union contracts which afford just cause protections, have management escape clauses which afford the employer the ability to terminate an employee at-will for lack of work, etc., as determined by the employer. This one does not."
As we know that warning was ignored and the contract for Ms. Copley and others were executed with wording similar to what Att'y Bartulis provided.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The never ending story (employee contract edition)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
All of us guessed that Bob Miller was probably at the meeting. We weren't certain on Co-Conspirator #2. Now, Natalie Dias has officially been "outed". This is very interesting, especially since she publicly stated she wasn't there.
Thank you, Bill, for making this information available to the public.
GOD BLESS YOU BILL!! You were sent here to save this Town from the denizens of the deepest pits of despair.
Thank you, Bill.
Finally: three Board members not afraid to speak up and speak out for the citizens of this Town, and to tackle the questionable governing of Dartmouth by its leaders and officials. And not afraid to tell it like it is, to all of us, either.
Wow, would I love to be able to go to my boss and TELL HIM what my job duties were going to be and not even pay for my lawyer to write up my contract!
It's obvious that the SB knew this was shady stuff because they never voted on the contracts in open meeting. What the public doesn't know won't hurt em! Now we know.
Did I miss something the only 2 names I see in the letter are Ed & Doris? Where are Miller and Dias refered to by name? Maybe I need to brush up on my reading skills.
Unlike those who initially responded to this thread, I read the 2/23/06 letter you referred to and included in your opening post. There is no mention of Bob Miller or Nat Dias in the letter. Is there something else you intnded to post for us to be able to see that lists them by name?
Also, I noted the following statement in the letter: "
The intent of these protections was to shield these employees from performing their jobs in a political fashion (with an eye toward addressing a concern of one or more select persons) and instead perform their jobs without fear of political reprisal or whim of a particular Board of Select Persons."
Gee... 3 1/2 years later and that language certainly has a ring to it!
If you strive for intellectually honesty, you should present the full context of the letter when opining on it. And, no, simply posting the letter does not do that.
Finally, again, please show me where you saw the names of Miller and Dias in print as being in attendance at that meeting.
Don't forget the library issue, which will skim under radar due to all the contract and Gagne distractions!
but without the mysterious contracts for life(provided you do a good job) what else can certain people complain about. salaries? its funny how a group of people with zero actual experience is the field feel they can decide exactly what a persons job is and whats the job worth without ever actually doing it. I also noted and agree with Anon 9:20. That was the intent of the contracts not to bankrupt the town(its amazing how 8 contracts can do all the damage Bill and his minions would have you believe)but provide protection against the political whims of the select board. If anybody had cared to listen to explanations instead of running for the pitchforks and gasoline they would have understood this and now the only people with money are the lawyers.
Yes, I do have Attorney Bartulis' notes which state who was at the meeting. I will post those as I have time.
My questions to you are what political implications does the paralegal have to deal with? That was the only contract that Att'y Bartulic saw. Why renew some contracts only 8 months after signing new 3 year contracts with some of these employees? Did the employees not have the same jobs doing the same tasks? Why suddenly they had to be protected? The Select Board is given the right to select an Executive Administrator. Why should a Select Board seek to tie the hands of a future board?
Most people have no guarantee of their jobs. Their employer continues to pay them because they do good work and the employer needs that work done. Why is that not a sufficient arrangement for town employees as it had been for years prior?
If you have information that would put this letter in context, tell us what that is?
I think that the plain language is quite clear as to what was going on. The Select Board at that time was trying to protect a few individuals from accountability. How is that incorrect?
Nat Dias must resign from the select board. According to this blogs information, Dias knew about the contract clause. The SB chairman must submitt a complaint with the state ethic's committee, concerning Nat Dias connection to the harbor master. I'll start to circulate a petition demanding that she resigns.
It was not accountability because the employee could be removed for cause. It was stricly against political whims of the select board. Since there was no cause for Mr Gagne's removal ,in fact people went to praise him for the job well done during the last years and his position isnt being eleiminated it seems to be the same political whim the contract forbode. And now the lawyers get richer while we cut crossing guards and the youth commision to pay for it. The schools cant pay the salaries for either since we would illegally dip below MNSS since they are town employees and since they are police they cant be transferred either
Why dont we start a petition to do away with the complete Select Board and replace them with a Town manager or Mayor. Then there will be one person responsible and accountable every 4 years. Lets revise the town charter to do this. And persdonally their is not a person sitting on the board now that would qualify to run!
Mr. Trimble, I'm the author of 2/27 9:20 AM.
I'm in complete agreement with you with respect to having that language in a paralegal's contract. But, I absolutely believe it belongs in the EA's contract, particularly given what has happened to Gagne. I feel similarly inclined for a few other top management positions in Town.
I know you disagree with me on that point, and that you believe the Select Board should have the right to change EA's whenever it wants to. Good luck with the next one under that scenario. Whoever it is will flat-out know he or she had best cowtow to the political power (as presently constituted, 3 of 5 members of the Select Board), or he/she will be gone. While you likely see this as an issue brought forward by inapproriate past political practices, I see it as setting the stage for future inapproriate political intereference. The main difference is, you have three out of five votes... so you win. For now.
I am set in my belief that the removal of Mike Gagne was a political act. A good and decent man who is a talented municipal manager and who has performed well for the poeple of Dartmouth was forced out due to the political circumstance of three people realizing they finally had the votes and are in "control". Also, I'm sincere in conveying my hope that something of this sort never happens to you or someone you respect. There are few things that sit as poorly with me as feeling someone has not been treated fairly.
You state that the only reason for this change is so that the SB majority can feel in control. Do you honestly believe that is the reason for non renewal of the contract? Why would anyone do that? Why would three of five people collectively do that?
Do you think that there are not and have not been problems in our town finances? Who is accountable for not having a plan to deal with that?
The Select Board absolutely makes political decisions. They are an elected board. It must be so. There are names for governments where there are no political influences, monarchy, dictatorship, Stalinist Communism, to name a few. I prefer the one we have to those.
That is exactly the reason for what happened. Mike didnt "cowtow" and had apparently violent arguements with your footsie buddie Diane resulting in her being thrown out of his office from what Ive heard. After seeing Diane in action I believe this is entirly possible and one of the main reasons im no longer a gilbert supporter. I also believe this select boards job is to run the town so far down that we elect a mayor which wont be so bad everybody can bitch at him for 4 years and get someone else.
Bill, why hasn't the S-T reported on this and identified the Board members' names? Have I missed it somewhere?
Actually, I believe the Town has been well managed. Dartmouth has a relatively low property tax burden, which is the result of being well managed. That low tax burden exacerbates our present financial issues.
Your use of the term "plan" has been an effective weapon for you in debate, but that's about it. The fact is, thre has been and is sufficient financial information in Dartmouth to properly manage our operations. I don't buy your rhetorical suggestion that some "plan", (whatever that means) would have made any difference.
I fully understand there are various forms of governmental structures and what sets them apart. Personally, I think the one person who has come closest to getting it right was Winston Churchill, who said; "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." In other words, government is not something people like, but it is something we need. Democracy is messy. And it has shortcomings. I feel the present circumstance in Dartmouth is representative of democracy's shortcomings.
I appreciate those who serve, and that includeds you, Mr. Trimble. I value service and debate. Both are essential in our way of life. And, that said, I'm probably too much of an idealist for my own good.
What I believe I've witnessed is a good man who was good at his job being replaced for reasons that were rationalized, and not for valid reasons.
I don't know you. But people I know who do know you speak well of you. That matters. I do know Joe Michaud. While I often disagree with Joe, I respect him. I'll not offer an opinion on Diane Gilbert.
Things have changed. I guess I need to accept that. It is not the same Dartmouth that I have so thoroughly enjoyed for many years. We are becoming fractured by the politics of personal destruction, and our quality of life is degrading to the degree that fewer services and opportunities are supported. It is a direction that most likely cannot be interupted, much less reversed.
As I said in an earlier post, fairness matters to me. And witnessing someone being treated unfairly really bothers me. I am bothered by the dismissal of Mike Gagne. And, for the record, while I know Mike Gagne, we are not friends. My respect for him is rooted in many years of professional acquaintence and working shoulder-to-shoulder with him on a variety of issues, projects and initiatives. And now, that's gone and I'm left hoping you will hire someone as good as him. But I make that statement being of firm mind that you will not find anyone better than him.
One final note, Mr. Trimble. It is on an issue that I am pleased to note you have not been party to. And, again, it relates to how I feel when I see someone being treated unfairly. The recent treatment of Kevin Lee by two members of the Select Board is reprehensible. I cannot fathom why they would do what they've done to such a good man. It's just not right.
Thanks for listening... or reading, as it were.
I don't agree with your assessment that we have witnessed the politics of personal destruction. Members of the Select Board have not engaged in any personal attacks on Mr. Gagne or Mr. Lee.
What has transpired is that the majority on the SB felt the town would be better served by a change at the Executive Administrator. That is not a reflection on Mr. Gagne's long service but rather a necessary consequence of the decision. You and I may disagree on that, but I remain convinced it is the correct course. People, especially executives, sometimes lose their jobs without any wrongdoing and that is the case here. Some have tried to make wrongdoing a prerequisite for that change. That is not the reason for the change and is not necessary to reach the decision. Mr. Gagne also was given adequate notice of the decision in my opinion.
Funding for the Youth Commission was cut from next year's budget. The reason was monetary and not a reflection upon the work that the Youth Advocate does. That is the reality of our fiscal situation now. That decision was made before there was any mention of pictures being posted. Subsequently, a citizen complained to the police about a picture that was posted on Mr. Lee's personal website which is linked to the town's own website. That raised some concerns about what can or should be linked to the town's website. There is no question that there was a picture of a child showing full frontal nudity on Mr. Lee's site. That picture has been removed. What I have heard of the SB concern is regarding the potential liabilities of displaying pictures of minors by a town employee in the course of his work and linked to the town website. The Town Counsel has weighted in with his advice on the releases required. A committee from the library has weighed in with their suggestions on appropriate links as well. The SB will be taking that issue up soon. SB members expressed concern about the liability the town may acquire due to postings on the internet. I have not heard any personal attacks against Mr. Lee. Certainly Mr. Lee has not shied away from publicity in this matter and is seeking to make it about himself and not about finances. That is not an accurate reflection of events in my opinion.
A life long Dartmouth resident said to me “Michael Gagne is a good man, but he is a puppet put in power to do favors when called upon”. A lot of people view Michael this way. You who are Michael’s friends or who feel a great injustice is being committed are blinded by your empathy and compassion for the man and may be missing the larger issue. The larger issue is municipal governments have rules. These rules dictate how day to day business is conducted. You cannot pick and chose when these rules are to be followed based on how you feel at the time or else anarchy follows. If the rules upset you there are procedures that allow you to change these rules. There is strong evidence to support the argument the management contracts for the town of Dartmouth did not follow the rules when they were approved. In fact they may have bypassed them entirely. I may not personal agree with how this is all playing out, but experience has taught me when certain people think they are above the rules only trouble follows.
Please tell the whole story Mr Trimble. It was a select board member that sent around e-mails that started the Lee situation. 1 simple phone call would have solved the so-called 'problem', he position would still be eliminated and a man's character would not be called into question after 24 years of faitful service.
For us that are dissatisfied with the way the SB has made these decisions april is coming and as we have heard since Mr Trimble has been elected from himself and Mr Walker many times that the voters chose a new direction. so lets all get out and vote and lets see which way the town wants to go now. See you in April!
Bill, dont insult our intelligence.I find it difficult to believe the cuts were strictly monetary when the bulk of the cuts so far announced directly affect the youth inDartmouth. You voted to cut the crossing guards knowing full well the school system cannot pick up the 73,000 without going below MNSS by 73,000. The schools cannot pay. I believe you realized on 24 %or so people have children under 18 in Dartmouth and played to the majority. Another point we know full well who the"citizen" was who started all this. I find it tough to believe the photo's were there for quite awhile and then surprise "election season" is here and time to bring it up along with the school busing contracts review. good election time rhetoric but transparent.
Defenders of Mr. Gagne and Mr. Lee have been "blinded" by their friendships. The simple truth is that Mr. Gagne was captain of a sinking ship and Mr. Lee holds a job we no longer can afford. It's really that simple, folks.
The schools need to assess their priorities correctly this budget season, sfter five years of the wrong prioriites overall. They can cut the Music Director/Athletic Director secretaries and Ana Rileys, to pay for crossing gurads.
Sorry I have typos, but I'm typing fast. In the private sector people don't have personal secretaries anyomore, there are cluster secretaries. Russell and Riley can share a secretary. This is why Bush St needs to get into the school bldgs--to reduce secretaries and consolidate admin. Of course the schools themselves need secretaries, this is normal, but all these extra, specific ones are gobbling student academic dollars and are excess.
Why hasn't anyone ever posted anything about the real-life "sweetheart" who got the "sweetheart contract"? The rumor is all over town.
Someone call Steve R and inquire about the total secretary count for the system and dollar total...This could equal thousands for books or other areas. As an advocate has pointed out there is no Art Director, so why an Athletic one and Music one, where is the equality. Directors make $100,000 and don't need secretaries. I wish Bill would investigate for this pro school, pro tax parent--use the dollars the best way for children!
what part of cant pay for crossing guards didnt you understand! they are town employees! if the schools pay for them the schools drop below minimum net school spending!! you remember that dont you! . its that rule that states this is the minimum you can spend on your schools!! unfortunatly its confused with the maximum you can spend on schools! the schools pick up the tab for crossing guards and the state comes after Dartmouth with large fiscal penaltys for NOT MEETING MINIMUM NET SCHOOL SPENDING.
Ellen. The athletic director is in charge of district wide physical education not just the high school but all schools and the same with the music director. Where would you like the admin to move? there's no room in any of the open schools and Cushamn costs twice as much to heat. Lenz tried to get them to move but outvoted 4-1. And as for total sectratary count YOU CALL! oh yeah then you cant be anonymous
Re Michael Gagne, I have never heard one word of personal attack from any SB member, and I personally agree with the decision of the majority to change the management. This is something which happens often in the Corporate world with the intent to stimulate new ideas and (dare I say?) move in a new direction. I will add, however, that Michael's constant stonewalling on the numerous long-standing requests for various meeting minutes, a legal requirement, borders on insubordination at the least. The law is the law. We have the Freedon of Informations Act for a reason, folks. Do you really want to give it up??
Re Kevin Lee, his job was only funded last year, as I recall, because of the override. Again, there were no personal attacks on him, just concern about photos on a Town -linked website. I saw the photos, except for the one that was removed after the DA said was inappropriate, and found nothing wrong with them, except (again)for their being linked to the Town website (think liability factor). I think that our collective responsibility to children trumps anything else in the discussion and I would hope that all of us would be vigilant about expressing those concerns. This is a sad commentary on life with the Internet, but innocent photos (don't most of us have charming photos of our babies in the bath?)take on a different meaning when available to the world and , often, predators. I applaud Friedman and Gilbert for doing the right thing in addressing the issue when they did. There's no time limit on something like that--you act when you see something that you don't think is right. To label them as censors is ridiculous.
Actually the situation started when a citizen found a young boy shown in full frontal nudity on a picture site linked to the town website and contacted the police. Opinions may vary about the appropriateness of posting such as photo. I didn't see it but I can comment that I do not think that should be available from our town website.
You have the advantage on me about an email. I don't think I have not received what you are talking about. I have received email from citizens who expressed opinions on both sides of this issue after it was published on the front page of the paper. Perhaps you would like to share who sent what to whom and what it said. Also tell us how an email got us to a front page story in the Standard Times featuring a prominent picture of Mr. Lee.
OK Bill, I will take you at your word about not getting the e-mail from a fellow select board member. Please take me at my word then that a sitting board member sent around an e-mail to me (and many others from what I understand) asking anyone to 'investigate' the YA for inappropriate photos. Why the intrigue? Why not just pick up the phone and call the YA and inquire about it? If not the YA why not call the Youth Commission to express concern? Why the e-mails? I don't know how the YA got his picture on the front of the paper-why assume he asked for it? Why not just as easily assume the person sending around e-mails also sent an e-mail to the paper? That seems a more believable route. And why, after eliminating the position for next year already does this smearing happen? The position was eliminated why the extra kick? Why?
These are my answers to some of your questions. However I don't have any first hand knowledge of any of the details. I don't know what the email said. Perhaps you would give us the text in a comment. I don't know who was contacted about the photos or who was asked to investigate. Are you someone who would be in a position to investigate? I do know that the police were asked and did so. I don't know if Mr. Lee was contacted or the Youth Commission. I don't know who contacted the newspaper. Obviously Mr. Lee posed for a picture for the newspaper. I assume he knew why but I don't know that.
That said, I think also that having pictures of children on a personal website of a town employee and linked to the town website may be a matter of concern. The town should have a policy regarding that and I think the one proposed by a committee at the library has merit. I posted it here.
My questions where mostly rhetorical Bill so I don't expect you to answer them since you where not the board member in question. I am just an everyday citizen so am not in a position to investigate anyone so I was perplexed when I received the e-mail. The bigger question for me, bigger than the issue in question in my mind is why was this the route chosen? This is the question I struggle with. I wonder why any sane person would want to serve our town under these conditions.
I believe I am quite rational and sane despite serving on the Select Board. Opinions on that vary.
Why is a town employee drafting the terms of her own employment contract without any meanigful restraint from management (that is, the Select Board)? Who is this paralegal woman? How did she become the town's labor negotiator? Something isn't right here. Can anyone explain?
Anon. 8:51
Doris Copley.
DOR101
We asked the Dept of Revenue to assess our town's situation. One of their recommendations was that contracts should be for 1 year..exception being police chief,EA and town accountant. Salaries would be set at what the town could afford. They found it unusual that we had 25 contracts with a term of 3 years and did not recommend it. We asked for their advice. Why don't we take it?
Never heard of her. What makes her so special?
DOR 101, Miller, Dias, Carney and the former board signed self renewing, no cut contracts with 8 town employees. According to Dias, there's nothing wrong with that and she'd give them to everybody. Carney thinks they're all nice people, hard working and deserve a lifetime job. Miller was looking to protect his chums before he got voted out. Let's hope he stays out. The town can't get out of the contracts without being sued. The current SB voted to give multiyear contracts to 4, EA, Budget and Finance, Police Chief, and DPW head. More lawsuits on the way. A sad state and you can thank Miller, Carney, Dias and company for it.
To DOR 101, What does the DOR report have to do with secret contracts with this kind of onerous, one-sided, anti-taxpayer language?
The Department of Revenue surely DIDN'T say "Issue secret, one-year contracts to your friends, political supporters, and 'sweethearts' and include only language that is anti taxpaper and an an insult to common sense."
The DOR recommends only 3 contracts in the town of Dartmouth. The energized personnel board has said the same thing. That is the direction we need to move. No more clauses that "tie the hands of the town", quote from Atty Bartullis.
Was he ever right!
Mr. Batulis was right.
Post a Comment