UPDATE - I have fixed the link to the 12/21/05 letter
One curious aspect of the story is the involvement of the municipal paralegal throughout. In the packet of materials that I received, most of the correspondence was from or about the paralegal. I am more than a little puzzled why so much time and attention was devoted to the contracts and work situation of this one employee. The correspodence with the earliest date in the packet is a memo from the paralegal to the Executive Administrator where she appears to be inventing a new job since the Town Counsel no longer needed her services or she no longer wanted to be paralegal, I can't tell which it is and have no first hand knowledge...
... of any of the circumstances involved. This memo and many of the others just seem to me to have an odd tone about them. The May 30, 2003 memo can be seen here
It appears to me from the correspondence that the paralegal was unable to convince the Personnel Board or Finance Committee that her job was new and different and warranted a higher salary.
I do know from personal experience some of the next part of the story. As a Town Meeting member in 2005, I was somewhat perplexed to find an article on the warrant which was sponsored by the paralegal and sought to reclassify her job salary range from the one published in the bylaws to negotiable. The article failed at Town Meeting. That ends my personal knowledge of the story.
Which brings us to the next two pieces of correspondence, a letter on November 17,2005 asking for permission to have Attorney Bartulis draft new contract language for her contract. Handwritten on the bottom of the page it says, Permission granted by unanimous vote of the Board on 11/21/05
Next is a letter to Attorney Bartulis from the paralegal dated December 21,2005, While the letter says it is regarding several positions, it seems to me to be about only one, the paralegal. It is also odd that the Select Board is trying to find a way to bypass the Town Meeting and bylaws if in fact that is what happened.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The never ending story (Paralegal involvement)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Bill, has the ST requested this information for an investigative story where all the evidence will be laid out in chronological order and all parties involved interviewed?
As someone asked on another thread: "Why is a town employee drafting the terms of her own employment contract without any meaningful 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?"
Bill -- Rather than continually chumming the political waters with red meat to bring the denizens of your blog to the surface in a feeding frenzy, you would do well to re-focus your energies on the fiscal problems that face our town. Even if these contracts are as heinous as many think, I don't see how any of the contracts caused, or are causing, the budgetary problems facing the town today. Do you believe that the contracts are responsible for the deficits that the town is facing?
Anonymous, Thanks for your advice on what would serve me well. I don't think I will take it though.
Despite what Ms. Dias said at the last Select Board meeting, there are still reasons for finding out what went on with these contracts. Two of them sit on the Select Board now and one other is running for a seat.
Anonymous asks, Why is a town employee drafting the terms of her own employment contract without any meaningful restraint from management (that is, the Select Board)?
I don't know but I hope that Ms. Dias, Mr. Carney and Mr. Miller will be asked to explain
The materials are available to the public including the press as was announced at the last Select Board meeting where members of the press were present
With all her time and energy devoted to keeping or creating her job, when did she actually DO her job?
This women had all the power because she was Miller's "friend" and since he had 2 other Select Board Members in his pocket at the time then that is how this all went on. Everyone at Town Hall knew it back then and the reason these contracted went in when they did was because there was a chance that Miller was going to lose his power at the next election. Mike was just doing what he was told by the Select Board so if anyone is to blame it is Miller, Dias, and Jreck. Carney and Horan could not get anything passed on that board unless Miller agreed.
Horan got her overlay district deal done though didn't she?
The only reason why this is dragging on is to help get Ms. Gilbert re-elected. Just as the anonymous poster pointed out yesterday, NONE of this will solve our fiscal problems.
It's done Bill we all recognize that contracts for life are not acceptable so now lets move on and hear what you plan to do to address the problem so it doesn't happen in the future.
I for one have heard ENOUGH about the past!
The only reason this is 'dragging on' is because it still has potential to cost the town in lawsuits from the other contracts! This was such a bad idea! Nat Dias said this was to protect town employees, but Doris C. was the first to get one...why does she have to be protected? Most people don't even know who she is! I think there is more to this dirty secret!
Don't forget, Gagne was hand picked by Miller and George, so he probably felt he owed Miller. Not a good position to be in. This needs to come out, we should never allow this again! Another reason why another form of government might be the way to go.
I agree. I have had enough of the past too and that is why I do not want the past to practices that have crippled this town to become part of the future. No more contracts for life and sweetheart deals. We need to give Carney the boot and keep Gilbert. We cannot solve our fiscal problems by protecting our cronies in government.
I respectfully disagree with Anonymous 7:29 AM and with the idea that the contract issue is "dragging on" to help re-elect Diane Gilbert. I have no plans to vote for Diane. But I think it crucial for this entire matter to be fully exposed and explained so that our town never gets dragged into such a mess again. Remember: Those who fail to learn from the past are bound to repeat it.
Bill, Thank you for rejecting the "advice" from Anonymnous 9:59PM. I know that some in our town want to ignore, overlook, redefine, attempt to justify, downplay, or simply forgive the egregious errors of our past town leaders on these contracts. Unfortunately, The Gang of Five did tremendous harm to our town with these giveaways. All of the truth must be exposed. Sometimes hearing the truth is painful. It is also necessary if we are going to learn and grow as a community.
I can no longer access the December 21, 2005 letter where the paralegal complains about her "political enemies". Bill can you re-post it and do you have any idea who she is talking about? Sounds like the proverbial "straw men" to me.
I fixed the link to the Dec 21 letter
I am not asking anyone to forgive or certainly not to forget. What I am saying is what the heck are you going to do so this doesn't happen again come April 8th if Mr. Carney is defeated like you wish and Ms. Gilbert is re-elected?
To Anonymous 11:23AM: Here is what I would suggest that we do as a town to make sure that we don't face a similar contract fiasco in the future. After the election, we should move to rescind all of the remaining sweetheart contracts. Next, we should change town bylaws to prohibit such contracts. That may require votes by some boards and Town Meeting. Third, we should remove Nat Dias from office in April of 2010. Finally, we should remove any other town employees or contracted individuals who were involved in the scheme to secretly and illegally grant tenure to these eight town employees.
When I wrote "rescind all of the remaining sweetheart contracts" I meant to RESCIND AND REWRITE contracts for those individuals doing their jobs and simply RESCIND for those who are not. Most of those department heads should stay on, but with new contracts.
12:54, with NO NEW CONTRACTS for the department heads.
The DOR recommends three contracts only: executive administrator, town accountant (our director of budget and finance/treasurer) and police chief. The library director is a fourth contract that is mandated by law.
Nathalie Dias got a fifth contract approved, that of the DPW superintendent, although this contract was not on the DOR recommended list, nor one considered by the Personnel Board who weighed in on the issue and wanted only the three contracts recommended by the DOR. This occurred at the June 11, 2008, joint work session with the Personnel Board and the Select Board.
Mrs. Dias defends the eight contracts with the job and financial protective provision (clause b) as needed for defense against changing personalities on the Select Board as new individuals get elected and old ones leave the Board, thus establishing a potential political atmosphere that might threaten the employees' positions and make it difficult for them to do their job. Clause (b) and the automatic contract renewal language guarantee they have nothing to worry about from anyone.
Dartmouth's harbormaster is married to one of Nat Dias grandauthers. He also has a Mike Gagne type contract.
3:07PM, you raise an excellent point. Let's just get rid of the contacts, except for the three positions DOR recommended.
So what rockodundee man? This was never a secret. In fact when the harbormaster was hired there was a huge 'to do' about appointing the son of a well known SB member as co-harbormaster. The current harbor master eventually got the job by virtue of his capabilities. He subsequently married the assistant harbor master who happened to be Mrs. Dias' grand daughter who also happens to be a very cabable harbormaster. Are these the next group that the 'hitching post' people are going to run down now? Who's next after that?
The eight with the contracts are Mike Gagne; Ed Iacaponi; Doris Copley, municipal paralegal specialist; Deborah Piva, town collector; Paul Bergman, administrator of assessing; David Hickox, superintendent of public works; Joel Reed, director of inspectional services; and Steven Melo, harbormaster/waterways direcotr. You are right: Steve Melo is married to her granddaughter.
I would imagine whatever the court judges on the legality and validity of Mike Gagne's contract will likewise apply to the other seven as well. It will probably be quite a while when that decision will be made. The judge stated it was not an easy case to determine.
This all started with Copley. Copley was the main force behind these contracts. Why was she allowed to continue in positions that that were created specifically for her? Why was she allowed to turn down directives from Gagne to assist other departments? Why was left alone by the staff to let her do her own thing? Why? "Special relationships" with a former Selectman has its perks and privileges.
To anon 3:21, The harbormaster never needed the protection you claim because his contract is for life according to M.G.L.
He does a fine job anyway, but doesn't need a never ending contract.
To the previous poster: No one doing his or her job NEEDS such "protection".
Whether he needed it or not, he got it. Why?
Whether he needed it or not, he got it. Why?
Bill, why hasn't the S-T published any of this information regarding Dias and Miller's attendance at the meeting, and Copley's prominent role in the contracts? Everyone in town knows already, anyway. Why the delay?
I have heard innuendo about a “special relationship” between a former Select Board Member and one of the beneficiaries of a contract for life. Is there anything to this rumor?
So why does my post Bill go ignored? Why do you keep complaining about the past and what will you do to address this in the future so this doesn't happen again?
We get it contracts for life are bad and anyone who signed them shouldn't have. I am pretty sure most of the people in town get this too so please stop insulting our intelligence by continuing to post every single email and minute piece of documentation you can dig up.
Please focus your time more constructively on a solution to move us forward so that this does not happen again?
Thanks Bill for posting this. Citizens have a right to this information and you have conveniently posted it here so they don't have to go to Town Hall for it themselves. This all needs to be exposed for several reasons. The voters should know how past & present Select members served the town during their terms. The problems the town is facing with these contracts are not over. This is still a relevant issue and not old history that has gone away. We have no need for the paralegal yet because of her contract, we can't get rid of her. We cannot reduce the salaries of any of these people. If we find we can consolidate various departments and these people are no longer needed in their positions, we have to give them another job with the same salary. If we have no money to pay for anything else, the salaries of these chosen few have to be fully funded no matter what. So no, this cannot just be buried because it is still costing the town money that could be well used elsewhere. It does sound like someone who had a personal hand in all this sure wants it to go away though.
Why can't you get rid of Copley the same way you got rid of Mike? Wouldn't with the town having to pay a lawyer for her own personal contrat be a valid reason?
How do you know Copley had a choice in the matter when she was "assisting other departments" with how shorthanded depts. are? And, if she was, wouldn't that explain why she was asking to be compensated for it? I'm suspect of all this speculation, especially when inquiring about the validity of an innuendo and then an anonymous says "yes". Does that make it so? And, just what is being implied here with this "special relationship"? An affair? Seems like slippery stuff.
Post a Comment