Despite the notoriety and attention focused on the now infamous self renewing contracts provided to some town employees as I posted about here, here and here, there is still more to this story.
A brief recap is in order. The Municipal Paralegal had a contract drawn up by a Boston law firm which inserted job and salary protection language into the contract. That contract language has been characterized as not in the interests of the town. Nonetheless, the Select Board at the time signed off on these contracts. The new contracts were signed in 2006, in the middle of the term of the existing three year contracts, superceding them.
Now it has come to light that an addendum to the Municipal Paralegal's contract was signed in 2007, a year after the new contract was signed. This contract addendum increases a stipend that is paid to the Municipal Paralegal and seeks to further restrict the Town's ability to adjust pay and duties. This addendum was not signed by the Select Board ...
... but only by the Executive Administrator, Budget Director and the Municipal Paralegal.
The Finance Committee have looked into the pay received by the Municipal Paralegal and the numbers never seem to add up. For instance in 2008, the Standard Times website lists the compensation received by the Paralegal as over $80,000. The information presented at that time was that the Paralegal was paid about $68,000. Adding the $8,000 provided by the addendum brings the total to $76,000. Recently, I learned that overtime is also paid to the Paralegal from the grant funds. It seems that would explain where the additional $4,000 came from. Why overtime is required to administer a grant is a subject to be explored further. Perhaps that is a task for Mr. Cressman when he starts in October.
At the Town Meeting in June, there was some discussion about the pay of the Municipal Paralegal. The Finance Committee had voted to reduce the line item for the salary by 15% or about $10,000. The Town Meeting voted $3,500 to partially restore the cut. Article R of the draft warrant for the Fall Town Meeting has a budget supplement for $7,140.95 to restore the remaining funds.
The Select Board has declined to renew the contract of the Municipal Paralegal and it is unclear whether the automatic renewal clause has carried the provisions of that contract forward. It is also unclear, but, I think, likely allowed by the Town Charter, Section 4.4, that the Executive Administrator had the authority to amend the contract. Whether that is a preferable practice is another matter.
What is not in question is whether the Town Meeting has the authority to set the compensation of the Municipal Paralegal. We'll see what the Finance Committee recommends and the Town Meeting enacts.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
More on perpetual contracts, the never ending story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
something smells fishy in Dartmouth, and it aint just Padanaram
so-called...
This is pure evil.
I hope we can get to the bottom of this before Mr. Cressman comes in, but I doubt it. It's too complicated and it's like peeling the skin off the onion. There's always some information somewhere that no one knows about or thinks to ask.
It would be great, however, if enough facts and information were made available for him. He shouldn't come into this blind, by any stretch of the imagination!
Did town meeting agree to fully fund this woman's salary because it felt sorry for her or thought she was being treated badly? Well I hope now our town officials realize what kind of person she is and choose not to renew her contract.
Thank goodness we are getting a new EA.
Let me see if I have this straight. We were in the middle of a financial crisis and this person was given a raise? Was the SB at the time aware of this or was it done behind closed doors? Shame on whoever was involved.
Just read the contract to see who was involved: Ed Iacaponi, Mike Gagne, and the soon to be unemployed Doris Copley. What a piece of work.
Next time, Town Meeting should eliminate the whole salary, every penny.
I will GUARANTEE there will be no "salary supplement" for this woman.
9:03, and two Select Board members. Read Bill's posts. Click on "contracts" on the left of this page and read all about the never-ending contracts, particularly correspondence between our municipal paralegal specialist and M. Gagne and the Boston attorney. Very telling information.
Should make you think.
Ms Copley tried to pull the wool at town meeting when she was lying saying she gets paid less. Bull ! Public records dont lie, but employees do. I trust the FinCom more than Copley with numbers. I think her work ethic is poor, and she is proven to be untrustworthy and has made the impression she does back door deals to save her behind. She should be held accountable like every town employee. She needs to be dealt with, perhaps Mattapoisett could hire her too? Couldnt we pawn her off on some other town under regionalization? She has got to go, she is poison for this town.
Who does this woman report to? Is she her own boss? Does she just make it up as she goes along? I think this should be the first order of business for Mr. Cressmen, since Ed I. doesn't seem up to the job. Ed probably has too many ties to Bob Miller.
If Ms. Copley was responsible for grants awarded to Dartmouth through the state or federal government, then there are legal repercussions if a portion of her pay was derived from those grant funds. Someone should alert the Attorney General's office (or the grantors at the very least) because her salary and "overtime pay" sounds excessive and quite possibly illegal. I believe it is impossible to pay someone for more than 100% of her time (as apportioned to each grant/department) and that sounds like it has happened here.
you know instead of "possibly illegal" and "sounds excessive" why dont you find out for yourself instead of blogging and waiting for someone to tell you?
I agree "poison" is a good word for her. I wonder if Natalie Dias has any comment. She voted for Miss Copley's lifetime contract.
I love anonymous bloggers,people who call people names and name other people in town...BUT never have the GUTS to come out from behind the curtain and expose themselves to everyone, so everyone can see who makes these accusations!!!!!
Bill, what's the story on a charter commission to review our Charter and bylaws?
If she is receiving $80,000, we should know about it.
Why are we being told one thing, when it is not even accurate? I don't recall anyone telling us that her salary was really $80,000.
because you've tuned into the hitching post where we make it up as we go along with just a bit of truth thrown in.Its your job to find it. We dont go to any meetings of any kind but dammit we dont have to because we're experts on everything.
Maybe you could ask the treasurer or the paralegal herself?
Maybe you could ask the Standard-Times where they got their information from.
Did it ever occur to you that there are some things that are never told to us and it hasn't been until some of our current and one of our past Select Board members showed any interest to ferret out information and go the extra mile to not only find it, but let Dartmouth residents know it, as well?
How long did it take us to learn about the never-ending, money and job for life contracts? Now are you upset because we are finding out more about the exact salary the paralegal gets?
How long should we have waited for this information?
If you doubt its authenticity, then look up her contract yourself. All you have to do is ask at the town clerk's office or maybe the treasurer's office. There should be no problem in allowing you to read it. And be sure you see the amendment with the change in her grant stipend. Be sure to read about her overtime opportunities. Did you know any of that? Do you doubt it? If it's in black-and-white, what more proof do you want?
Do you wonder what else we may have had slip by us over the years? Probably not. You probably think everything is just hunky dorrie.
You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn't changed.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don't cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.
Post a Comment