Finance Committee member Greg Lynam writes in an opinion letter in today's Standard Times that Dartmouth is making progress toward fiscal stability. I completely agree with what he writes. Mr. Lynam warns ....
...that we must continue to reduce costs at every opportunity and to spend wisely. I hope that the election in April will not compromise the progress we have made. I believe that Frank Gracie and Diane Gilbert are the candidates that support our present course and I support their candidacies
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mr. Lynam on our prospects
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
I agree with Mr. Lynam to a point, I feel all of those things could have been done without the nastiness. Now all the progress that has been made with our budget is being overshadowed by how the people involved were/are treated. I don't agree with the contracts, I just feel things should have been handled better by our town leaders, and now the taxpayers(CFRG), filing another law suit.
Thank you Mr. Lynam for your continued service to the town and your dedication.
Anyone who thinks getting rid of the automatic renewal clauses in the contracts could have been handled any other way is not being realistic. There are some who would gladly have it removed but others clearly would require legal action. Better sooner than later.
The sweetheart clauses must go! Each and everyone is a potential lawsuit for our town. Shame on the former board for ever doing something like this to our town!
I would rather see one lawsuit instead of five. Maybe this will move the board to sit down with these five people and offer them a one year contract. We will see who is willing or not. The rest are probably going to end up in court! This is a potential nightmare for Dartmouth! Just when we don't have the money. Things should have been handled a lot better in 2006! It's too bad we have such things to deal with. Our leaders betrayed us when they signed never ending contracts with town employees.
As Lynam says, things that were 'hidden' for years in Dartmouth are now being dealt with. It wasn't the case that the public was not paying attention because they didn't even know what was going on with Miller et al. and his never ending contracts. They were hidden. Now the people know the truth. Dartmouth must deal with these contract once and for all & then move forward. Open government should always be #1.
Mr. Lynam also points out that the progress we have made has been over the past year. So my question is why get rid of Mr. Gagne? He was still the EA in the past year while we made progress and changed many things. So I guess I still don't see how he didn't fit in this "new direction" if progress was made on his watch. Remove the renewal clauses on all contracts, those who value and care about their job will have to compromise or find a new job.
Progress was made because the Select Board took the bull by the horns and did it themselves with the help of the Finance Committee.
Word is that Gagne's motion for injunction has been DENIED. Thank You Diane for shining the light on these never ending, secretly negotiated contract clauses.
2:51PM You are correct and it has been confirmed. Thank you Diane, Bill & Joe for your perseverance!
Rumor also has it that Mr. Trimble has been cited for an ethics violation.
Bill, we need facts here, not just rumor. Have you heard anything about the status of Mr. Gagne's request for an injunction?
My opinion is that the rumor about Bill being cited for an ethics violation is just another nasty rumor. Sad really.
I'm sure if there's truth to an ethic's violation against Bill, it is in regards to him speaking with conflict of interest due to his wife being a plaintiff in lawsuit against the town.
Notice Bill isn't denying it.
7:27AM He is not acknowledging it either. In America you are innocent till proven guilty. Please provide evidence to support your claim. If you cannot provide evidence because you are sworn to secrecy I can empathize with you because it is a very frustrating position to be in. If this is the case then posting you outrage at the same time you are unable to show supporting evidence will only bring you closer to a heart attack on line.
In the best of times Mr. Lynam has typically made fairly negative predictions, has he cave in to political manipulation? I have a hard time believing he really thinks we are doing so well.
Greg Lyman is the man who got up in front of the SB on DCTV and said the SB had not consulted with FinComm to calculate the first override number. That took courage and conviction. Greg Lyman is not one to cave-in to political pressure.
Nobody in this town has done more than Lynam to make the finances of this town transparent and understandable. Those who are trying to cast aspersions on his motives just make fools of themselves.
I think many are relieved that the Library Board of Trustees saw the light and made its difficult decision. From that standpoint alone, we are making progress. The Board of Trustees was a very long holdout to keeping the status quo within its ranks. At least it appears the members are taking the community seriously through action, rather than words, and acting accordingly in their decision to not renew Denise's contract.
10:14 - He certainly did. And, he also stated the figure was way too low! Interesting you chose to omit that.
Mr. Lynam's statement, pointing out that $8.7 million was too low, was not an endorsement of the override request but an estimate of the magnitude of an override that would be needed to sustain the town without making the changes that have since taken place. His estimate was that over $13 million dollars would have been needed to sustain the town's on-going operation if the town did not make changes.
See! I challenged your assertion, gave the facts as I see them, and did not engage in an attack on you. Do you think I am wrong? How so? Do you have other facts to introduce? What are they?
3:35PM You are absolutely right, but the point I was making was not about the override amount. It was Greg's refusal to bend to political pressure.
With the way discussion shifts between the serious and absurd on this Blog I am not surprised you thought it was interesting I omitted he said it was way to low. I was not even thinking about the amount. However I had forgotton that.
I do have other facts to introduce. Not only did Mr. Lynam emphasize the need for changes (in unison with all SB members, BRTF, and DOR), he also explained clearly what was meant by a structural deficit: the need for both increased revenues and decreased expenditures. Mr Lynam also made it clear that it was not realistic to think that cutting expenses alone would address the structural deficit.
And, I do think you are wrong about many things. Mistakes were made by CFRG in misrepresenting facts, manipulating others, and purposefully omitting others, I have read many blogs here detailing them over the past year (in a respectful manner, so please review them rather than ask for them again). Yet, you continue to regard this group's activities as commendable. Many view that as a mistake on your part, and I only point it out as a means of understanding others mistrust of you.
There are no structural deficits. That is an excuse not to make hard choices. The town has both reduced expenses and increased revenues. The pay as you throw fees added $1,8 million to the budget and the voters approved a $2.1 million override last year.
I don't know what the CFRG position was on trash fees but the group did endorse some override measures.
I think that you can't back up your allegations against that group. They have a point of view and so do you. You cannot factually refute their arguments, so just assign bad motives to their arguments.
Mr. Lynam clarifies what DOR states to be a "structural deficit" - "the need for both reduced expenses and increased revenues". And, your response is "there are no structural deficits - that is an excuse not to make hard choices." I'm not following you.
And, are you saying that the $1.8m plus $2.1m along with whatever changes have been implemented have addressed the estimated $13m that Mr. Lynam projected would be needed?
Re allegations against CFRG, they can be backed up and they have. I'm not talking about points of view. I'm talking about the misrepresentation, manipulation, and omission of facts that have been factually refuted. I would think that would matter to you. Perhaps, the CFRG were convinced their motives were "good" and justified their means.
12:20, I guess I missed them. Can you elaborate what CFRG's omission of facts, misrepresentations, and manipulations are?
They can be reviewed in many blogs made here throughout the past year, some very recently.
Anyone who tells me to check the comments on blogs to look for evidence against the CFRG has no credibility with me. Can't you refer to specifics within the reports that they have released?
don't be lazy. you don't have to go far. i'm sure you've read all the disputes here on Bill's site but just chose to ignore them!
Post a Comment