A group of taxpayers have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the automatic renewal clauses in the contracts of some town managers are not enforceable. The text of the complaint, filed in Bristol County Superior Court, can be found here.
The complaint names the contracts of Michael Gagne, Edward Iacaponi, Doris Copley, Joel Reed, and Deborah Piva as those having perpetual employment clauses and asks the court to declare the contracts expired ...
... and continued payment under those contracts illegal. Massachusetts General Law chapter 40 section 53 is cited as the basis for the suit. That Chapter and section allow ten taxpayers to petition the courts to declare appropriations or obligations illegal.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Taxpayers file lawsuit regarding contracts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
115 comments:
I am so glad these taxpayers did this because it is exactly what I thought should be done, I guess they only needed ten tax payers, but I am sure they probably could have gotten at least 10,000 taxpayers to jump on board.
Cool, another lawsuit!
What will this cost the town? was there a way to stop the contracts with the Personnel Board and avoid a lawsuit? Citizens deserve more info on this cost and timing.
So Gagne is suing, Lee is suing? And now this, we're on a roll.
Wow, this is quite a who's who of Dartmouth - a lawyer, a millionaire, two citizen advocates, a selectman's wife (?) among others. And they have also listed our new, interim Executive Administrator. I suppose between running the town, running the office of budget and finance he'll find time to answer the charges found in the lawsuit. Interesting we'll now have to pay our lawyer to protect our interim EA from a lawsuit brought by a selectman's spouse who appointed the interim EA in the first place. Gonna need a notebook to keep this one straight. Oh and better get the checkbook out too.
Fabulous! Onward and upwards!
Can I have the novel or book rights?
Please remember where this started: Copley, Gagne, Iacaponi, and two "unnamed" Select Board members.
Bill, do you know why these "unnamed" Board members have not been identified by Curt in the S-T yet, along with Ms. Copley's correspondence back and forth with Attorney Bartulis?
Those citizens without computers might like to know all about this, too.
This lawsuit doesn't have to cost the town a dime. Since it is not in the town's interest to retain the perpetual contracts, why then would the town contest this suit? My vote on the Select Board will be to agree with these taxpayers and ask the judge to rule that the contracts are no good.
Well, that is a relief, no cost. Will they all not be renewed (Like Gagne, Medeiros) or they will be offered one year contracts? Curious do we seek all new employess for less money/
I'm glad we will soon have these nasty contracts behind us. And make sure that this NEVER happens in Dartmouth again! This lawsuit is kind of taking care of all 5 in one suit. Good idea! Instead of a steady stream of lawsuits, one at a time.
Again, thank you to Diane Gilbert for bringing this secret out to the public.
These are bad, illegal contracts. I am glad that these people are stepping up to get rid of them. But why aren't Carney and Dias (the two remaining signers) listed? They deserve to be sued over their stupidity.
Why can't Bob Carney and Natalie Dias just say they made a really, really big mistake? I can forgive people who apologize. Are Bob and Nat being stubborn or just stupid?
Carney and Dias don't think they were a mistake! Both think town employees deserve lifetime appointments. On election day, you know what to do. Vote Gilbert and Gracie!
Bill, I am confused. You state this law suit will not cost the town a dime. Will our town counsel not look at its merits? Does he not cost money? Will those named in it and have a vested interest in the outcome not try to protect those interests? Should you even be commenting on a lawsuit initiated by your spouse? Somwthing tells me this is not as simple as you want to make it out to be.
Bob Carney should have followed Mr Millers lead and withdrew from the race, it seems like he doesn't even want to be a SB member anymore.As for Ms. Dias, what were we thinking, I will never figure out how people thought she could help the town in any constructive way.If all Mr Carney and Ms. Dias can say is they believe they did the right thing when they signed these contracts they should no longer be in a leadership position.Voters lets fix this.
I said it doesn't HAVE to cost the town anything. I said that, in my opinion, the town has no interest in seeing the contracts upheld. The Town Counsel doesn't HAVE to respond at all. If a judge rules the contracts are invalid, void or illegal, that's good for the town I think. The suit is by taxpayers against the town. I don't see where the people with the contracts are a party to the suit. I am not an attorney so these are just my opinions, not legal arguments. I will leave to those arguments to those admitted to the bar and the courts.
Why not just have Vincent draw down on 'em. Sort of like a vertically challenged John Wayne.
LOL
The Hathaway Road Gang rides again. What a joke.
Doesn't cost the town a dime, hey Bill who pays for the court system?? That would be me and my fellow citizens of Dartmouth. SO it still costs me something doesn't it?
Talk about parsing statements Bill. Sure it does not HAVE to cost the town anything. Should the judge see it favorably for the 'taxpayers' that have brought suit I am certain those named will simply roll over and say 'OK, I accept that I will no longer be paid.' And as another poster has already said, good 'ol Ed Iacaponi, the guy who as recently as two days ago was touted by you and the rest of the SB as 'the right man to see us through all this till the new EA is chosen' gets to fight off the courts as well. Nice pat on the back for a job well done. Thank you Ed for picking up the slack created when we changed direction, oh and better 'lawyer up' between balancing the books, and running the town. Nice work folks but sadly the way things are done here in Dartmouth these days.
Once more, slowly for those of you who think this is a bad thing. The defendant in this suit is the Town of Dartmouth, not the employees. The town can choose not to contest the suit. I think they should not contest it since the contracts in question are not in the public interest. If the court rules in favor of the taxpayers, the contracts would be ended. Then town and employees can then negotiate new contracts. If the town or the employee do not wish to enter into a new contract, they have that option. I have not said the town should not enter into new contracts nor does this suit seek to prevent anyone from doing so. The suit seeks to have the perpetual nature of the current contracts ruled invalid which may prevent future lawsuits. In my view, the taxpayers are doing the town a service, at their own expense, by bringing this suit.
If the employees decide to appeal such a ruling Bill, then what? And on whose dime?
Last comment I'll make on this. The employees are not a party in this lawsuit. If the court rules in favor of the taxpayers, the contracts are over. Who would appeal? Not the town and not the taxpayer. Those are the two parties in the suit.
can choose and wont choose are two entirly different things. 800k in the hole and were off to court AGAIN.
I think that those who have the contracts will be allowed to respond to the suit but that would be on their dime not the town's. Unlike when Copley used the taxpayers' money to pay the lawyer to draw up the clause for her personal benefit.
Reading the document Ed's contract has expired as well as the others. Have they been removed? Hope Ed's not still doing his original Job hes not getting paid for it is he? Where's his replacement? or the others? with no salaries being paid to the infamous 8 we should be out of the hole real soon!
The citizens involved in the lawsuit took it upon themselves to try to fix the mess a previous Select Board made and at their own expense. I commend them for taking action instead of continually whining on a blog.
I thought originally there were 8 such contracts. One being the harbormaster. What is the status on these????
What about Dave Hicock? Didn't he also have a sweetheart contract"?
Mr. Trimble, you might want to solicit an opinion from Town Counsel before voting "to agree with these taxpayers and ask the judge to rule that the contracts are no good." You will likely be deemed in conflict because you are related to one of the people suing the Town. Indeed, your comments on this blog might already have created problems for you and the Town on this matter. By posting the statements I and others have read, you have articulated a position in writing and made it available to those who will rightfully vote on a matter (remainder of the Select Board) in which you have a clear conflict.
Not smart!
Bill, try to be patient with those of us that are not lawyers and those of us that do not have acess to your wife's lawyer and the lawyer that is part of this lawsuit. It would seem to me that those that will lose their contracts will have an interest in the outcome of this case and will now be engaging their own counsel to try and participate in this case, further since all the so-called 'sweetheart' contracts are ot listed I would think there is some grounds for those that are listed to wonder why? Any rationale behind the selection of who got listed and who did not?
Seems we'll be spending a lot of time in court these days, Ed I included. Does thetown have an 'auto pilot'? I hope so.
If those employees who are listed choose to fight the lawsuit, it will be at their own expense, not the town's. The taxpayers who have filed the suit will also be paying if these employees choose to fight it, not the town.
Anyone who believes that fighting these contracts is not a good thing is either someone who is personally involved, say someone who has one of these contracts or someone who had a hand in the approval of these contracts, or they are someone who just can't agree with anything someone else does who isn't tied to the good old boy network. Disagreeing just to be disagreeable.
The day my name appeared on a list with David Vincent would be a very bad day, indeed.
yeah Michael, disagreeing to be disagreeable that must be it. Lawsuits are always the best way to handle things. Won't cost us a dime. Selectman's wife suing the town, same selectman publicly supporting a lawsuit against the town and the guy he just placed in aposition to head the town while the former EA is suing the same town. Won't cost us a dime. SOmehow I am finding it difficult to agree with that statement, and I am not in favor of the contracts in question either, but I would not want to be disagreeable.
Bill,
It seems to me that by commenting so openly and publicly, while sitting on the Select Board, with your wife as one of the people filing the lawsuit, would clearly be unethical. I'm not a lawyer, so you lawyers out there help me out here, but wouldn't unethical activity by a Select Board member that results in an ethics lawsuit being filed against both the individual and the Board have to be defended by the Town? If not then the money will have to come out of your pocket, what a shame.
I don't get it. This action is basically the same action that the town itself just took. So why the opposition to it? Let's face it. If you oppose this action, then you support the lifetime clauses in the contracts or at least you don't want a fuss made about them. Possibly besause your name is on them?
Please explain what you see as the ethical issue here. A lawsuit has been filed and that is a matter of public record. I have commented on the suit in a public forum (here). I have not said anything differently than I will say at a public meeting of the Select Board. The taxpayers who brought the suit are not seeking anything other than to have the court rule on the legality of the appropriation. I think that the interest of the taxpayers and the town coincide on that issue. There is the matter as I see it. Perhaps you can expand on the ethical problem that you see as I fail to see it.
If Bill has a conflict because of his statements, don't Carney and Dias have the same conflict since they have publicly supported the contracts?
I am waiting for the first of the Lucky Eight (now Lucky Seven, I guess) to tell the Select Board that he or she can live without this one-sided, immoral, illegal contract language. Where is the first profile in courage? Bill, any guesses?
We should erect a statute to the first department head who agrees to rip up the contract.
I agree with the lawsuit but I think Attorney Greenspan made a far stronger argument on behalf of the town and against Mr. Gagne's position. Either way these contracts are all going to be declared void because they were done illegally, in secret, and the town got nothing in return. Thank you for shining the light on these important documents.
Not so, 10:44. As best I can tell, Dias and Carney aren't related to any of the eleven residents who filed the suit. If they were related, the moment they became aware of the lwsuit, they would recuse themselves from any and all particiation in it.
You see, Mr. Trimble, the difference is that your wife has begun a legal action against the Town, and you are a member of the Town's executive body - the Select Board. Obviously, based on your prior statements and actions, you agree with the purpose of the lawsuit and hope it prevails. However, simply agreeing with it does not eliminate the existence of a conflict of interest. In ALL matters where a conflict does (or even may) exist, you have a responsibility to recuse yourself and not even comment on the matter. The fact that your spouse is party to this suit creates a conflict for you. You can no more support the lawsuit than you could oppose it, simply because of your wife's involvement in it. There is no question that you are in conflict on this, and you do have to sit on the sidelines.
If you believe it is okay for you to participate in discussions and actions relative to a lawsuit brought against the Town by your wife while you serve as an elected member of the Select Board, I believe you will be participating at your own peril.
Here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:
Your wife sues the Town.
You represent the Town as an elected official serving on a Board.
The lawsuit comes before the Board you serve on.
You are in conflict because of your relation to the party bringing the suit against you (the Town).
You'd be well advised to actually go so far as to leave the room while it is being discussed before the Select Board.
You'd also be well advised to refrain from any public discussion, particularly a discussion conducted in writing (like on this blog).
You're a big boy... do what you want. I don't particularly care for your politics, but I wouldn't want to see you or anyone get in trouble over something so entirely unnecessary.
The mistake made in all of this was having your wife sign onto the lawsuit. Who was the mensa candidate that thought that one up? Let me guess... Dave Vincent. LOL
Let's also remember that Select Board member Nat Dias publicly told Mr. Gagne to sue our town, not to invalidate a contract, but to take our MONEY. Talk about a conflict of interest and violation of an oath of office.
Bill...Since only ten taxpapers are needed for the lawsuit, not eleven, your wife could just remove her name. End of story.
I disagree with these contracts. But, I have a problem with the people here behaving like their some kind of heroes, and that they've uncovered some kind of "corruption". Give me a break. Disagree and do what you may. I will not condemn anyone seeking job security contingent upon merit-based termination and label them as corrupt. Though I don't support these contracts, this is not uncommon practice. Get off your high horses. And, Bill, you can be just as pathetic with your tactics as your claiming others to be. The tone you're setting is self-serving and of no benefit to our town. The true heroes of our town are those who work for the common good never seeking the spotlight and looking to condemn others whose opinions differ than their own.
Come on Kathleen, we all know this is you just trying to put a hush on your embarrasment involving these contract clauses. Why don't you come out and admit that the only reason you served on the board was to get your buddies their Lincoln Park Overlay District. That's why you weren't paying attention to these contracts and now look like a totally incompetent attorney.
I disagree with the previous poster. The contacts at issue here are hardly "common practice" at all. They are way, way outside of the norm.
I disagree, too. These contracts were not just negotiated in secret. They were voted upon and signed in secret. I'm no fan of Diane Gilbert, but if she hadn't made a big stink about them, these contracts would still be secret. Having secret contracts with public employees, paid for by the public, is hardly common.
I'm not going to vote for Mrs. Gilbert but she certainly has a right to brag about exposing these contracts and Mrs. Gilbert, her supporters and colleagues can label them "corrupt" if they want to. They certainly stink to high heaven.
Why are the other 'sweetheart' contracts not included here? Sounds like a vendetta against some using the contract issue as a smokescreen. This should be interesting.
The reason the others are listed is because their contracts don't expire until later. Also there is no need to fight the harbormaster's contract because state law provides for a lifetime appointment anyway.
So, what was the reason for him to even have a contract in the first place, or at least one with the protective clause (b) and automatic renewal language in it?
Bill,
You wrote "My vote on the Select Board will be to agree with these taxpayers and ask the judge to rule that the contracts are no good."
You should not do this. Please recuse yourself from any SB votes on this issue. You have a conflict of interest and your involvement taints the credibility of the board.
I see by this lawsuit that Ed Iacaponi is getting a pre-mature thank you from the taxpayers for agreeing to pick up the slack and help the town through the transition between EA's. You know what they say - 'A good deed never goes unpunished!'
Hire a lawyer yet Ed?
Oh and thank you.
Dartmouth used to looked upon as a model of municipal government. Now it is the laughing stock of Massachusetts. Very, very sad.
Westport looks sophisticated compared to us now. Plus this whole mess will end up costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time when we can't afford it.
Well, please don't blame the taxpayers for this - - - OR Diane, Joe, and Bill.
Question: should we just ask for apologies, join hands, and sing "Kumbaya"?
What's the possibility of laying the blame squarely where it belongs: Copley, Gagne, Iacaponi, Miller, and Dias.
anonymous 4:25 The harbormaster got one because Nat Dias didn't realize it was already state mandated. She wanted to protect her own but didn't even know she didn't have to.
Okay drama queen. I don't see anyone pretending to be heroes. Taxpayers and/or citizens standing up for themselves or trying to right a wrong is not about being heroic but doing what is right.
Hey Kathleen, Since you are expending so much effort to sabotage the correction of this insult to taxpayers, let me ask you this. Did you sign the contracts because you didn't know any better or was it the deal you made in order to get your friends the Lincoln Park deal?
I get a kick out of you thinking your communicating with Kathleen. It's not the only wrong conclusion your jumping to. But, obviously you could care less about that. So, continue your drama of immorality and corruption. And, delude yourself into thinking you're motivation is about doing what's right. Self-righteous is more like it!
Looks like the lincoln park deal reference strikes a nerve.
Bill, would it be the sb who decides if the town decides to contest the suit?
Mr. Trimble, please just get an opinion from Town Counsel so you will know if you are considered to be in conflict, or not. It isn't worth placing yourself in a situation wwhere you have to face an ethics charge. On ounce of prevention...
My bet would be that Bill did consult an attorney about conflict with his wife signing. My second bet is that it wasn't an attorney that spends their time on blogs and signing contracts that are clearly not in the best interest of the people they represent.
I'm confused. On the 6th at 4:39 Bill Trimble said "This lawsuit doesn't have to cost the town a dime". How can that be when the Town is specifically listed as a Defendant in the complaint? Doesn't the Town have an obligation to have Town Counsel answer the complaint because the Town was listed, thereby costing the Town at least a few dimes?
Also, why didn't the Town simply renegotiate the contracts at the end of their terms (five days ago)and remove the objectionable language and avoid this mess?
You are confused anon 11:12. Dartmouth is unlke any place on earth. Lawsuits are a dime a dozen here, maybe not free but frequent.
I think the inmates are running the asylum.
Certainly at the CFRG!
In my opinion, this single lawsuit is far better than 5 individual lawsuits. This makes sense. The 5 contracts are up in June. Why should the town wait until that time and have to deal with 5 lawsuits.
The town (SB) will NOT vote in favor of these contracts. End of story.
I'm sure many more taxpayers would have signed on, but only 10 were needed, so why bother.
The fact that we have to deal with these contracts is the fault of the previous board and their secret backroom deals. These contracts were not voted on in open meeting session for a reason!They knew what they were doing!
Good advice from a day ago
"Bill, Since only ten taxpapers are needed for the lawsuit, not eleven, your wife could just remove her name. End of story."
The word is that this taxpayer suit is the brainchild of Joe Michaud.
Bill,
Do you realize how it appears when you say "My vote on the Select Board will be to agree with these taxpayers"? Your wife is one of these taxpayers. What would you say if Kathleen or Bob or Natalie voted on how to handle a lawsuit in which his or her spouse was involved?
5:12 I'm sure your someone who knows that's not the case!
This suit is what is needed right now because these contracts are up in June. Does the town want 5 new lawsuits!
Thanks Bob Miller et al. for your brainchild! You really know how to screw up a town!These contracts are a mess!
These five contracts, as well as Michael Gagne's have already expired. They were all entered into on March 1, 2006, and expired February 28, 2009.
These six contracts are for Doris Copley; Steven Melo, harbormaster/waterways director; Michael Gagne; Ed Iacaponi; Deborah Piva, town collector; and Joel Reed, director of inspectional services.
Have you read Bill's entries for
Feb. 26, Feb. 27, March 1, March 2, and March 7 regarding "the never-ending contracts"? His links reveal Ms. Copley's extensive role in this mess from the emails she sent to the Boston attorney, Joseph Bartulis, Jr., along with other correspondence, and Attorney Bartulis' handwritten note naming Miller and Dias as the two "unnamed" Board members attending the meeting where the contracts were discussed and approved, without the other three Board members present.
Bill,
If you vote on this issue, you may open the town up to additional lawsuits. Please save the town additional headaches and step aside.
Bill, They only want you to step aside so that there won't be a majority of SB members to eliminate these contract clauses. Don't be fooled.
When the contracts ended on February 28th does that mean they automatically renew at that time? Are these people legally town employees as of now? How come these contracts were never brought up at the select board meetings? Another "secret" maybe? We knew way ahead of time when Gagne's contract was due. Shouldn't everybody be treated equally?
See what happens when you don't pay attention! Diane Gilbert brought this up 3 years ago and has been trying to find out what happened ever since. A good example of why we need to keep her on the board.
Two points.
First, the Hathaway Road Gang is rapidly becoming the gang that can't shoot straight. As is typical of a group that believes they're in control, they screwed up a strategic initiative (the lawsuit) by including (and thereby compromising) the wife of one of their three Select Board members.
It's too late, now. Even if Mrs. Trimble removed her name from the lawsuit, she was still party to it, which places her husband in conflict. That was really dumb of the HRG. I'm guessing it was Dave Vincent's idea. The HRG is learning the hard way that they shouldn't listen to Dave Vincent. LOL
Second, the story in today's Standard-Times reveals Diane Gilbert for the nut-case she truly is. Gilbert made an allegation to The Standard-Times that there's a deal by her political opponents to save Gagne's job.
Here's the bests part: She (Gilbert) said she has no proof to support her accusation. "I'm a critical thinker. I'm connecting the dots," she said. Yikes! LOL
This one also has Dave Vincent written all over it. He's believed in conspiracy theories for more than thirty years! He's Dartmouth's version of Captain Queeg. LOL
Anyway... I pray Dartmouth voters read the story and let it sink in. Diane Gilbert is a total whack job. This most recent incident fits perfectly with her condescending I'm-better-than-you attitude toward others.
So, there you have it. The HRG is on the path to self-destruction with its new-found practice of "Ready, Shoot, Aim." LOL
Bill,
You may want to contact the Massachusetts State Ethics Commissions and seek advise as to whether your in conflict. Supporters like Anon 9:30 will do a lot of talking now but I'm sure won't pony up the money if the town gets sued.
http://www.mass.gov/ethics/
Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a municipal employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, with knowledge of the relevant facts, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy her favor in the performance of official duties, or that she is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence.
I'll be calling to request a Stone sign today. You're all connecting the dots! I think part of the problem is that the CFRG think they "led" people to vote the way they did, and it all went to their heads. In actuality, people aren't inclined to vote in favor of raising their taxes. The CFRG likely played little or no part in the outcome. Regardless of whether one voted yes or no on the override, it's time to join an effort to disband the CFRG with their inflated egos.
Wow, and it is Gilbert that gets accused of running a negative campaign. Just read the few posts above and you will see the proof that Stone has nothing to run on except negativity.
to Anon 9:22 am, you say Stone supporters have nothing to run on but negativity however all these posts are anonymous so who knows where they come from. Why do you see negaive comments about Stone in a different light? By your logic those people are Gilbert supporters.
There is proof in today's newspaper, via direct quotes, who is running a negative campaign - withou' 'facts to back up' her accusations. Tells me all I need to know.
I doubt anyone from Stone's campaign ever wastes their time to comment on this site. This site has made me into a Stone supporter.
See the contracts are not the biggest problem this town faces! Lets get on to the fiscal crisis and enough about contracts! I supporetd Gilbert and wil not ths election! Its out in the open and every one is suing everyone. Proud to be from Dartmouth these days! I think not!!!!!
As a CFRG member I can state one of our objectives has been to sometimes provide an opinion or view that is contrary to the one being presented by our town officials or other special interest group. We think both sides of an argument should always be presented and that is what we have tried to do. Now just because you don't agree with that view and/or opinion, doesn't mean it shouldn't be presented.
As for influence, I do not perceive it in the same manner. If people are provided with information from both sides of an issue, we feel they are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. If the town as a whole does not agree with our position, then so be it. We respect that decision. I cannot understand attacks against a citizens group which you claim has no influence anyway. Whether you agree with an opinion or not, differing views make for a healthy debate. Where would our society be if we all agreed on everything and no one was allowed to offer another point of view? Or worse yet, citizens are only provided with selected one-sided information?
The CFRG makes no claim to influencing the outcome of the 2007 override. We gathered information and verified all of our numbers with the Finance Committee before releasing anything to the public. The voters made their decision based on the information released. Both sides had ample opportunity to present their arguments. I'm sorry if you did not agree with that outcome but that is democracy.
As long as ALL the information has been provided regarding an issue, we respectfully leave it up to the voters to decide what is best for the town.
Are you saying you present an opposing view even if you don't support it? Which positions would you like to back off of. Pardon the grammar. Is it ok to present an opposing view, even if there are no facts to support it? Is polarization your goal or just a natural outcome? No, these are not rhetorical questions.
Maryanne says it all. One of the CRFG's objectives is to "sometimes provide an opinion or view that is contrary to the one being presented by our town officials or other special interest group". Notice the term "other special interest group". That is all the CFRG is, a special interest group.
A few special interest groups that support Lara Stone and Mike Watson, town employees, teachers, the school administration, and PTOs. All override advocates! Trouble is that with Horan McLean and the rest of the Select Board, except Gilbert, cheerleading for an override, the voters said NO. The voters will continue to say NO. What part of NO, don't they get?
No one is advocating an override in this fiscal climate. Not in Dartmouth, not in Massachusetts, probably not anywhere in this country at this time. I supported the override a few years back but the voters and spoke and chose not to increase taxes. Ok, it's done, on to plan B. Just because I supported an override does not mean that I should forever be labeled as having an agenda to pass an override. Let's move on to the task at hand, spending each an every dollar in the wisest way.
Yes, and among Marianne Walker's special interest groups are those with million dollar property assessments like her own. We're on to your folly - have been since the beginning! Nice of you to identify yourself this time.
Who makes up this secret society out to right all wrongs in the name of the taxpayer?
Wow, just the mention of CFRG sends some people into a crash and burn tailspin!!!!
Like sharks to chum.
If I recall correctly, Greg Lynam, a volunteer on the Finance Committee, also spoke out against the 2007 override. I guess he had an agenda too. Maybe he is one of those million dollar property owners or part of the Hathaway Road Gang.
Hey, Greg Lynam thought the amount was too low!
I don't believe Greg Lynam is a member of the cfrg, but the Walkers certainly are, spearheaded the group, and are million dollar property owners, who did tell people NOT to figure in a split tax. They needed to keep figures inflated. Whose name are you gonna drop for the next distraction from the truth?
And, Marianne, don't fool yourself - your input wasn't to leave it up to the voters - it was clearly to manipulate them, and that's the problem I have with you. I don't have a problem based on who voted yes or no. The cfrg deserves to be under attack because you originated as a special interest group presenting yourselves as otherwise - the cfrg deserves not to be trusted. And, I don't.
So what were you going to tell people in fy10 when you needed another $10mil override to sustain the fy07 $8mil override and the split was already in place? By the way your group based your numbers on a fifty % split which didn't happen. You failed to tell taxpayers about the future ramifications of your HUGE override. It was shameful, deceitful, and morally reprehensible.
For all of those trashing CFRG (I am not a member- but I support hem): CFRG is the biggest reason that the ill-conceived tax override failed. Had he override passed, then we would be running out of money right now, except we would have not made any of the structural changes that are beginning to turn this town around. Those that supported the last override would be pushing for another one as we speak.
is that so
"your group" - wasn't my group. And, they actually enabled all voters to calculate based on varied split tax rates. Your crystal ball and misrepresentations are shameful, deceitful, and morally reprehensible in keeping with cfrg's reputation.
Why don't you all get over it.
The Pro-override crowd with their signs and their vocal supporters and letter writers lost thanks in part to a grassroots effort launched by a few citizens.
Thank you CFRG-- you have a lot of fans despite the postings on this blog.
I voted against the override even with kids in school not because of the CFRG. I think they are self interest and to arrogant. My property is not worth 1 mil.They are soon to be surprized. Not all that voted no think like them or respect their views and I think this election will show that. A new direction again. I believe the CFRG and the bunch are on thin ice this time!
That's refreshing to hear, and I respect your personal decision to vote no for reasons that were relevant to you. It would be helpful for our town if the cfrg were to step back and gain perspective as to why they are deserving of the criticism coming their way. They just seem to smug to be able to.
Come on everyone, we must keep attacking the CFRG. They have the nerve to present people with the actual facts. This is not good for our propaganda campaign. Keep up the good work.
9:24, You don't think that they most likely are pushing for another override now?
I wouldn't put it past them.
And I would be extremely leery of both Ms. Stone AND Mr. Watson on the SB. Even ONE of them on the Board alone would be dangerous to unbiased, impartial, for-the-people government, but two would be even worse.
A poster on this or another topic said it all: we would be controlled by two school-biased boards, the SC AND the SB. And it would be "controlled," not governed. Big difference.
You're right 9:49 just look at the actual facts cfrg'r 10:19 presents us with!
LOL
I don't see post 10:19 attributed to the cfrg but then again we are all too familiar with LIARS around here like poster 10:44.
Speaking of liars, some get a fire extinguisher. Kathleen's pants are on fire. Again.
Another override maybe yes maybe no> But see democracy is for the people just cause somebody might want it we get to VOTE again Democracy!!!!! and to 9:49 do you own a computer if so do your own research and see what you come up with based on CFRG information. Again I voted no with Kids and the CFRG does not represent me or my VOTE. Again self serving and the arrogance to believe that all taxpayers follow their lead!!!!
Yes cfrg is the devil. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Join them and you will burn in hell for eternity.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
If you don't agree with me and Lara, you might get away with purgatory, but if you join cfrg, It's eternal fire for you.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
I heard one of the cfrg members has already impregnated one of the members of the parents group with the second child of Satin.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Dartmouth will never know he's coming. He'll be disguised as an innocent school child named Damien.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Stephen King has nothing on us.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. BURN, BABY, BURN!!!!!
2:18 needs a medication adjustment.
Bill,
I think it is time to settle down the troops. Some of the posts are beyond ridiculous (e.g., 12:12, 2:18)
Ive had enough! bye hitching post from my favorites! See you all at the polls!!!! Good Luck!!!
Gee, Bob be a man, the least you could say is "it's really me doing this I'm hiding behind my wife" Shameful Bob, You and your wife have reached a new low. Maybe when you lose re-election because you already know your done, your wife will run for office.
Post a Comment