The Standard Times had an article today about their meeting with the condidates for one of the two Select Board seats in this year's town elections. Ms Gilbert and Ms. Stone attended and Mr. Miller did not.
There are a few sentences that I think are illustrative.
First, Ms. Stone critcizes the Select Board handling of the non renewal of Mr. Gagne's contract. She feels a one year contract without the renewal clauses should have been offered. This misses the point entirely. Mr. Gagne's contract said it automatically renews. How then is a one year deal with different terms possible? Also it appears that the HR person that she references...
... was the very person instrumental in getting these contracts instituted in the first place.
Second, Ms. Stone is quoted in the article Stone defended her support for an $8.5 million override in 2007, and called it "a well-crafted, long-term solution."
She said the override would have cost about $150 more in taxes, and now taxpayers are paying "$150 in fees and services are being gutted."
The $8.5 million override proposed in 2007 was irresponsible and wrong headed. It was not a solution to anything but rather an attempt to continue business as usual. It would have ultimately made matters worse. Ms. Gilbert was correct in opposing it. The 2007 override propsal would have raised property taxes more than 20%. I have to question where the $150 amount that Ms. Stone quotes came from. Look at your last tax bill and see if 20% is an additional $150. Mine would be $490 more. But aside from the numbers, I think the above statements show a fundamental lack of understanding of what the problem is and where the solutions are to be found.
The article also says that their exchanges sometimes became testy. Perhaps it is not as easy to reach a consensus between differing views as Ms. Stone has suggested.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Gilbert and Stone in the Standard Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
Finally, Stone is forced to show her colors. She also lied about the cost of the '07 override to the taxpayers. Running on being positive with soft skills and the first thing she says is a dig at Gilbert. All her support letters are from the usual suspects, Ricki Piva today.
Stone's campaign staff must be cringing today. The only thing that could have made it worse is if the interview had been done on live TV and everyone could see Ms. Stone pointing her finger at Ms. Gilbert as she was snapping at her. Remind you of anyone???
Perhaps finding concensus with diane gilbert when you disagree with her is not as easy as first thought. As for the cost at a split tax rate of 50% the override would have cost 210 dollars for a home valued at 300,000 as stated in the standard times on 8/1/2007 not $490 and certainly not 20%
stand up for yourself against some like Diane! Im proud to be a stone supporter . She took a page out of the gilbert playbook.
The 2007 override was a 26% tax increase. It's nice to use a home value of $300,000 because it makes the numbers look better but lets be real. How many of you own a home that was valued at 300,000 at the time of the override? My taxes would have increased by $500.00. I would rather pay $150 in trash fees. The override would have made the problem worse and it would have required overrides year after year to sustain itself. The trash fees sure look good to me compared to constant tax increases.
Funny how the people who make the most money are the least willing to pay responsible taxes. Just because you bought too much house and didn't consider taxes ever increasing, does not make an override the wrong fiscal choice.
My house is worth less than 300,000. I bought a house in Dartmouth I could afford. unlike some others apparently
how is a increase of $210 on a 2000 tax bill 26%? apparently you didnt get that good dartmouth education thats being denied to the kids now.
Even if you house was 500k your taxes go up 500 is 10%
Just in the interest of accuracy, the base tax bill for the median home in 2007 valued at $320K was $2176. An $8.5M override would have cost that person $484.16 more, a 22.3% increase.
IF we had a 50% split, and that is a big IF, the base bill would have been $1994.46, and the override would have cost $444.04, also a 22.3% increase.
I believe the ST numbers were based on the delta with a projected PAYT cost. Now that we have PAYT experience everyone can do their own deltas.
Thanks Frank, for exposing the used car salesman approach that Stone and others used and apparently are still willing to use in order to sell their overrides. Maybe you could give them a lesson on how the entire tax process starts with the levy and that the rate is a result of how much they predetermine that they will collect for property taxes.
But Frank with a split we recieved back $182 (theoretically) lowering the cost out of pocket from 444 to 262.00. from ((2176+484)2660 to (1994.46+444.04)2438.50. 2438.50- 2176 = 262.50 at 320k so while the increase maybe 22.3% the actual increase was much less.
And the split rate was NO IF . we voted almost 10 to 1 in favor for the select board to institute it. If they hadnt we would have all NEW selectmen by now.
There is no maybe. It was a 22.3% tax increase. Just because you personally didn't feel the full brunt of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just like your argument about fees, you don't care as long as someone else is paying the extra.
doesnt sound like he's selling a override . sounds like he knows what he's talking about. no used car involved.
show somebody who paid a 22.3% increase in residential taxes. Didnt feel the full brunt? oh yeah I bought a house I could afford. a minority im sure
Many, many people bought houses they could afford and then assessments went through the roof which was no fault of their own. Of course there are many who have moved here in the last ten years who will readily tell them that they should just pay up or move from their multi-generational homes.
Bill, I'm disappointed at your response as your opinion is nothing more than that - an opinion. Also, you know very well a split tax rate was used in figure projections (as did Frank G.) Your omission makes you both suspect. I expected more of you. Gilbert states she didn't feel the override would sell as reasoning to vote against it. So, regardless of its merits, if it's a tough sell Gilbert won't help. Sounds like a cowardly position to take to me. The override seemed to clearly benefit owners of homes valued at median/average values with the split tax rate figured into it. And, speculation that an override would be tied at the hip with business-as-usual was mere propaganda. My vote for Gilbert three years ago was a mistake. When reading Gilbert's statement regarding having 25 years in HR, my first question was where's the evidence of that now. Lara Stone had the same logical response. Gilbert and her husband's dispute with Mike Gagne prior to her being elected brings one to a logical conclusion as well - a personal vendetta in action. Expose the details of that "secret" please. I will be giving Lara Stone a chance this time to show bold and innovative leadership. Gilbert's certainly bold, but in an arrogant and deceitful way - that's my opinion in following her leadership the last three years.
Bill - Without providing the context of Lara Stone's recommendations of the handling of the Gagne matter as: "Stone maintained that the Select Board followed "a faulty process" when it voted 3-2 not to renew Executive Administrator Michael J. Gagne's contract. She said the town is now at risk and might have to compensate Gagne for three years of his salary if he wins a breach-of-contract lawsuit pending in Superior Court", you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting her. The ST then quotes: "She also said the town should have heeded the advice of town counsel Anthony C. Savastano about the potential liability and offered Gagne a one-year contract with performance goal" Your opinions and suggestions may differ, but your tactics here are transparent. I have just recently tuned back in to the blogs with the election approaching. It's disappointing.
" irresponsible and wrong headed" "an attempt to continue business as usual" - Propaganda hits the nail on the head! Let's put this into perspective. If your property were assessed at well over $500,000 like Barry Walker who spearheaded CFRD, you wouldn't have benefitted as those falling in the median/average category would have. Not a very admirable cause.
3:34 Bill is not the only one with quiet a lot of opinion in their post. You are very sensitive about how the override was crafted. The problem was not in the numbers, but how the override was sold.
You identify yourself as anonymous and then state “speculation that an override would be tied at the hip with business-as-usual was mere propaganda. If you will not identify yourself and tell us why it was mere propaganda your words are hollow and your opinion. I think at the time everyone thought the management contracts were speculation also.
The response by Ms. Stone who is a good person to Ms. Gilbert’s 25 years of HR experience was not logical, but nasty and uncalled for. Ms. Gilbert has never said an unkind word about Ms. Stone.
I knew nothing about Ms. Gilbert and her husband's dispute with Mike Gagne prior to her being elected. By dispute you must mean the very real management contract cover up exposed recently on this very same Blog. Ms. Gilbert did speak about this from her first day in office, but no one was listening. I can only assume because you are a logical and intelligent person you have not read and viewed the evidence showing something very wrong and harmful to Dartmouth did occur. That in fact Ms. Gilbert was only doing what she was elected to do which is look out for the publics interest. I am sure Mr. Gagna would not look at it this way but people caught with their hand in the cookie jar never do. How else would you draw the conclusion that a personal vendetta exists unless you were trying to smear Ms. Gilbert and her husband reputation.
4:52 please define out of context. I think what you are saying is everyone should visit Lara Stones website to help clarify public statements she makes on record. Not a bad suggestion, but part of the political process is being taken out of context and the good candidates learn to craft clear focused answers.
To “Anonymous March 4, 2009 4:34 PM”: First, let me identify myself. I am Diane Gilbert’s husband. I have never had a dispute with Michael Gagne over anything, at any time. He will if asked, I am sure, confirm that. In fact, Michael was kind enough many years ago when I lived and worked in Cambridge to forward copies of newspaper clippings and other items he uncovered at Town Hall concerning my father, who preceded Michael as Executive Secretary to the Board of Selectmen, as the position was then called. For that act of kindness, I am forever grateful. Michael and I, in the few times our paths have crossed, have treated each other with nothing less than the utmost respect.
However, you, sir, I deem a liar, a man without honor, and by not identifying yourself, a coward of the first order.
LOL
It was easy to see that Stone really took it to Gilbert, and Gilbert acted precisely as anyone who knows her would expect - with rude & crude behavior. One can almost see her constant smirking and squirming like she does at Select Board meetings. And that whining know-it-all tone in her voice, too!
So this is how it's going to be, eh, Bill... you'll schill for Gilbert all the way to the election. How predictable. LOL
Nice try, but like so many in the Stone camp you are no where near as smart as you think you are.
The very fact that Lara Stone thought the $8.5 million override was 'well grafted' scares me! What was she thinking!
That was a nightmare from the get go.
Dartmouth needs to move forward, not back. I've heard that Lara Stone wants to re-open Cushman School.
On that note, I'm voting for Diane Gilbert!
Ya, we're gonna raise the tax levy by $9.1MIL and it's gonna cost you less. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Pay up you losers. The Boston transplants are taking over this town. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You're nothing but a bunch of dumb Country bumpkins that just don't understand. We're going to educate you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
If you don't fall in line, I'm gonna have my brother Whitey come see you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Pay up or get out of town. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The 20% is very easy to compute. In 2007, the tax levy was less than $40 million. An override of more than $8 million if divided by the $40 million gives a result of .2 or 20%.
The issue of tax classification is separate and I do not consider overrides to be germane to that issue. A split tax rate was used to try to sell the huge override in 2007 but the reason to have a split tax should not be tied to overrides. It should be adopted as a fairness issue in the relative proportioning on residential and business property tax. To shift the burden to business in order to get residents to pass an override is not a equitable way to decide a split tax rate.
To the comment that I didn't present the context of Ms. Stone's remarks on thte executive administrator's contract, I point out that my argument was that her suggestion does not address the fact that the contract renewed automatically. How then to get a one year contract without the renewal language? It takes two parties to enter into a contract. Why would Mr. Gagne give that provision back if the contract is enforceable. Also I did link to the article itself
Lee Marland - I'm very aware you are Diane Gilbert's husband because your name was stated in the ST article published several years ago about the very dispute you claim to not exist. So, perhaps you should take it up with the ST. Can't imagine why you didn't when it was printed! Your pompous remarks reveal a lot about you - remind me of someone else, actually.
Bill - the lack of fundamental understanding may be on your part regarding Ms. Stone's suggestion. It was in her addressing the liability issue facing the Town. I'm sure you realize no re-negotiation can take place between two parties without an "attempt". There's too much nonsense going on here. "fairness issues" - can't regard you to represent fairness from what I see going on here.
I was leaning toward voting for Lara Stone, but after reading the ST article, and the blogs by her supporters I think I'll vote for Diane Gilbert, I feel Ms. Gilbert is not swayed by special interest groups, and I am not so sure about Ms. Stone, its starting to seem like she already has a couple of special interest groups.
I have never heard anyone say that the town would have to pay Mr. Gagne three years pay. I have no idea where Ms. Stone got that concept. Perhaps you can inform us on how that would come about.
Mr. Savastano's letter addressed all the automatic renewal contracts not just Mr. Gagne's contract. In fact, Mr. Gagne's situation is different because the term of his appointment is specified in the Special Act that created the position and the Town Charter. MGL also specifically states that an executive administrator can not have tenure. I have posted the pleadings on this blog and you can read them for yourself at this link
Who in their right mind would give up an contract that is never ending for a one year contract with specific performance goals? Is Lara Stone so persuasive that she could talk someone into that one? Come on!
There are two outstanding letters in today's Standard-Times. Both make it clear that Gilbert must go.
I'm sure it deeply annoys Gilbert loyalists when they read evidence such as these letters that their attempts to prop her up via this blog are failing miserably. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I will be voting STONE...with Miller out of the race..it's one on one..and people are sick of the deceite of Gilbert and TRIMBLE giggle-buddy team...thats right GIGGLE BUDDY...both of you are like two peas in a pod over there on the left side...like two little scholl kids in love...and Bill's attempt with the Lisa Tavares from the park board was terrible...you know BILL you should really consider TALKING to other DEPARTMENTS in the town to find out what they do....it is part of your JOB as the CEO of DARTMOUTH..
Why would Gilbert Loyalist be annoyed by the same 50 or so people that keep on trying to knock her down, these letters in the ST will not change the voters mind ,it seems like the Stone supporters that are getting annoyed and desperate . I am sure we will see much more attacks on Ms. Gilbert as we get closer to election because the Stone Supporters find it easier to knock Gilbert down that to build Stone up.
I have two choices for the Gilbert seat. Based on Gilbert's performance the past three years, I will be giving Stone a chance. Many have voiced the same sentiments to me, and none of us are part of Stone's campaign.
Miller is out of the race. I will be voting for Diane Gilbert! Lara Stone is the override queen! She defended the $8.5 million override last year!
I have heard that she wants to re-open Cushman School...is that true? I'll ask that question at the grange.
Nice try. ABG!
To 5:05 am, Are you serious! The letter in the S-Times was from a neighbor of Gagne. For someone who is in business to actually support never ending clauses or the posting of a naked picture linked to a town website...you must be ill informed. I don't know how you run your business, but it amazes me that you could defend either of these practices! Another la la land voter.
To “Anonymous March 4, 2009 7:18 PM” a.k.a. “Anonymous March 4, 2009 4:34 PM”: As with all liars, when caught, you must conjure up another lie to cover the first. There is not, nor has there ever been, any article in the Standard-Times about a dispute between Michael Gagne and me. There could not have been, simply because Michael and I have never engaged in a dispute of any kind. Had there been such a newspaper article, I am sure you would have gleefully posted a link. I am not pompous, sir. I am angry. I despise liars and cowards.
I am also saddened. Although I am obviously voting for Diane Gilbert, until now I respected Lara Stone as a young woman with a mission who was willing to put herself out there – not an easy thing to do. But if she continues to countenance such vile and vituperative attacks, she will quickly lose that respect. You, sir, do her ill.
Lee Marland - Not falling for it, no matter how biting your remarks are. Do your own research if interested in finding article. I came across it last year - in the ST archives!
Diane, Don't worry about the nasty Stone supporters. We know how hard you have worked for the 30,000 plus residents of Dartmouth.
It's not just about Cushman School!
The override last year was just a quick fix, not a solution to our problems!
Thanks for your hard work. I'm surprised you last the first two years on the board with that crew!
You have much support around town. People know you are working for them!As they say on Curt's blog.Lara Stone is the override queen! In her own words: she supported it!
Wait. Lee Marland, that rings a bell. Oh, now I remember. Lee Marland is the town meeting member who never bothered to show up to the spring 2008 or fall 2008 town meetings. I guess this town is important to him only if it doesn't inconvenience his schedule.
Just out of curiosity....why is it when someone, anyone complains about Gilbert it is the "Stone people" that is behind it and everyone says they are not going to vote her, but when the same exact thing is done to Stone, the "Gilbert people", nothing is said.
There is a clear and distinct bias on this blog. Yeah, I know its' Bill's and it should be that way for him, but there is also a distinct slant towards Gilbert and Michaud. I guess it should be since the 3 of them are seeing eye to eye on most things currently going on.
I sincerely hope that is not really Lee Marland making those posts. If it is, he is not helping his wife by making such rude comments about Lara Stone. If it is Marland, and if he keeps posting in similar fashion, who in their right mind would care about having his "respect"? Get a life!
Bill - interesting my comment about opponents use of split tax rate issue was omitted. Says a lot. Guess you followed the logic.
I would like to know what deceit anonymous 5:29 a.m. is referring to. When has Gilbert or Trimble ever been deceitful? I find these nonspecific comments to not only be annoying but an obvious attempt to discredit people with no evidence required to prove the statements.
Why bother with evidence. It's just ignored. People paying attention understand.
Stone is only concerned with the school department and overrides.
4:11 - and you're probably one of those fools possibly owning a median/average valued home who got suckered into thinking an anti-override vote was the thing for you! Or are you one of those over $500's who did the suckering who's sitting pretty! So many fools in this town.
Curt Brown reported that Stone snapped at Gilbert! Oh no, not another Kathleen, Please!
Diane has taken enough heat for the first 2 years on the board with those that signed the never ending contracts. We are just beginning to put the puzzle together from Miller's secret...
We need Diane on the board!
After reading Lara Stone's website and what was reported by Curt Brown, it appears that Lara would support more overrides instead of moving to consolidate and regionalize first. I really don't think that the majority of people in Dartmouth want overrides. I would vote for an override ONLY as a last resort.
I will cast my votes for Diane Gilbert and Frank Gracie. Both of these candidates would help to move Dartmouth forward.
With Ms. Gilbert we know what were getting, with Ms. Stone there are to many unknowns. Lets give Diane 3 more years to finish what she started and continue to move our town foward.Ms Stone you should also get some new campaign people, they and your supporters(negative)will be your undoing.
Someone mentioned it erlier but it bears mentioning again, why are negative comments about Diane always attributed to a Stone campaigner? Using that logic I must conclude that all the nasty, negative comments about Lara are from Gilbert supporters. Dos not make sense at all, why not just state why you support one or the other without feeling the need to drag the other down? I don't get it.
I post nasty comments about Diane because they are true from what I have witnessed and I am not on the Stone campaign. I think you will find that many have seen Diane for what she is and are just thankful there is an alternative. I think Diane would be best as grand pooh bah of the CFRG... so I am going to give her that opportunity to run for the pooh bah seat by not voting for her for the Dartmouth Selectboard.
I voted for Diane Gilbert last time but will not be voting for her again. It is nothing personal. Diane has certainly done some good, especially exposing this contract scandal, but not enough good to earn another vote from me. While doing good she has forgotten to be civil. I am not part of the Stone campaign.
Please cite an instance where Diane Gilbert has not been civil. I don't see it. Are you saying that disagreement is lack of civility? Isn't asking pointed questions part of her job? We had a Select Board that agreed on everything and they agreed to sell out the taxpayers. Do you want that?
The biggest injustice here is that these contracts are being sensationalized as a scandal. I am not in favor of them, but it is not uncommon practice for one to seek job security contingent upon merit-based termination, and SB members in favor of them are entitled to their own opinions, though mine differ. I support these contracts being revoked, but I do not support those people on their high horses behaving as if they're some kind of heroes uncovering corruption in our town. Give me a break!
Awarding special advantages to your political supporters and "friends" during secret meetings and at the expense of the town you were elected to represent sounds like corruption to me. You can say it is "not uncommon practice to seek job security" all you want, but your words will never justify the acts of the former Select Board. It is fair to describe them as immoral and corrupt.
That's your spin. I don't defend the contracts, and I won't defend you either as you judge immorality and corruption. A spin could be put on many of you to resemble the same description. Dylan and the Dalai Lama would never play any part in it.
7:11PM might want to read the lyrics for Masters of War.
To 1:58 Give ME a break! The sweetheart contracts were done in secret for a reason. THEY WERE WRONG! And the former board knew that. That's why they were never voted on in open session. It was supposed to be a secret....well, thank goodness Diane Gilbert had the b$$#s to open her mouth and speak up!
We don't need that kind of politics in Dartmouth. The board has moved in a new direction with much more open government. This is for the good of the residents. Even this blog: I read Bill's post and don't always comment, but I get more news here then in the S-Times. And I realize that the post are just opinions. I'm referring to the post that Bill makes. Thanks for all the Dartmouth news.
I've always thought she looked like a bird! I'm cracking up here!!!
Post a Comment