When I posted here, two candidates had taken out nomination papers for Nat Dias' Select Board seat. Ms. Dias will not seek re-election. David Gonsalves and Melisa Avila had pulled nomination papers to run for the seat. Since then Jamie Melo of Emerald Drive and Edward M.Pacheco of Louthan Kirby Way have taken out nomination papers to run for that seat and ...
... Michael Ricardo of Chase Road has pulled papers and withdrawn them. Mr. Pacheco ran for Select Board unsuccessfully in 2006 and 2007.
Mary Ellen DeFrias of Essex Street has sought nomination papers to run against Joe Michaud for his Select Board seat. Ms. DeFrias is a member of the Board of Registrars of Voters and is the director of alumni at UMass Dartmouth. The Standard Times has reported here (subscription required) that Ms. DeFrias is not going to return the nomination papers.
Scott Lake has taken out papers to run for Cemetery Commissioner.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Select Board candidates still not set, numbers increasing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
70 comments:
I heard David Gonsalves is not running. He took papers because he is not in favor of the wind turbines.
Frank Gracie, where are you?
Bob Miller, who led the fight for those one-sided contracts, took out papers. NO NO NO!
According to my contacts, Miller took out papers for both Select Board seats.
BOB MILLER????? ARE YOU SERIOUS?????
JUST WHEN WE WERE CLEANING UP THE MESS LEFT BY THAT OLD REGIME.
Mr. Gracie has expressed an interest, and I believe Mr. McDonald, currently on the School Committee, has, as well.
Miller is a has been, we don't need to go back to business as usual! We'll have to wait until Tuesday when the papers are returned. The story will change on Tuesday.
Let me cite a few reasons why Bob Miller has no business running for public office:
1 - He was a key architect of the no-cut "contracts-for-life" for eight town administrators.
2 - As a member of the Select Board, he repeatedly advocated using sewer enterprise money for general government purposes, an illegal act.
3 - As a member of the Select Board, he repeatedly advocated using water enterprise money for general government purposes, an illegal act.
4 - He forced Michael Gagne, the former Executive Administrator, to do unsavory things that ultimately led to Mr. Gagne's non-renewal.
5 - For many years, Mr. Miller led the town into fiscal chaos and was drummed out of office as a direct result.
Mr. Miller should save himself the embarassment of having to read the sad truth about his terrible public record.
Somebody called the bar room? Did anyone tell him it is year 2010? Did anyone tell him that the town folks figured out his act? Last call for alcohol! Good night Bob, and sleep well.
Mr. Miller doesn't stand a chance against Joe Michaud and he knows it. If he runs for the other seat, it will be because he thinks there are so many candidates running, he might stand a chance. He is not a stupid man but is it possible he could be so unaware of how people feel about his past service on the Select Board? We need people who will serve for the good of all residents not just Bob Miller's chosen few.
Bill, do you have a list of candidates who took out nomination papers? There's nothing on the town website and the local newspaper didn't have anything today.
I would vote for Miller in a second. Love him or hate him he always told the truth, unlike some current SB members.
Bob if you run again you can count on my support.
Mr. Gracie is in.
"4 - He (Robert Miller) forced Michael Gagne, the former Executive Administrator, to do unsavory things that ultimately led to Mr. Gagne's non-renewal"
How can you say that? Mr. Gagne is an adult. He has free will and he had a choice. No one can force anyone to do anything he or she does not want to do. As such, an individual must take responsibility for his or her actions, and stand up to whatever he or she feels is wrong to do.
Seat #5
Joe Michaud
Mary Ellen DeFrias
David Gonsalves
Robert Miller
DeFrias rumored not to be running
Seat #2
David Gonsalves
Melisa Avila
Jamie Melo
Edward Pacheco
Michael Ricardo
Frank Gracie
Robert Miller
Shawn McDonald
Gonsalves, Ricardo and Avila rumored not be running (Gonsalves may still run for seat #5)
You can add to Mr. Miller's list of transgressions, his opposition to the split tax rate. Of, course, Mr. Miller is a business owner. Of course, Mr. Miller refused to put aside his conflict of interest. What is good for Mr. Miller must be good for all the taxpayers right? Maybe not.
Gonsalves 2010!!!
With all due respect Joe hasn't done ANYTHING....except talk.
He wants to run for 2 seats...why?
why not pick one, State Rep or SB.
seems to me he is just your typical career politician.
We don't need anymore of those.
WOW !! How can you use Miller and Truth in the same sentence! Miller was one of the SB members responsible for the "never ending contracts" for town employees. How soon we forget! When Miller was on the SB for all those years, it was a good ole boy club!
A previous poster said: "I would vote for Miller in a second. Love him or hate him he always told the truth, unlike some current SB members."
Wrong. Bob Miller NEVER tells the truth. His fellow board members couldn't even trust him as far as they could throw Town Hall.
As a town, we have wisely removed all of the people who signed those dreadful "contracts for life".
Nat Dias and Ed Iacaponi are the last ones to be shown the door. (You don't think Nat really retired voluntarily, do you?)
Let's not forget that Bob Miller signed them, including the one for a special friend.
My picks for the two Select Board races:
Seat #5: Joe Michaud. He simply deserves re-election. He's brought stability and civility to the Select Board. Joe has made them into a Board, not just five individuals, once again.
Seat #2: Frank Gracie. This guy is straight shooting and a hard worker. He was the "odd man out" in that Carney-Watson-Gracie race about a year ago. He deserves a chance. He's in the race for the right reasons, too.
The coffee shop talk, if correct, has Eddy Pimental waiting until Monday morning to take out papers for selectman. He is running against Michaud. Good luck Ed, you have my vote.
I'm voting for McDonald.
Monday is too late to take out nomination papers. Friday was the deadline.
Why would we vote for a Wire Inspector (Gonsalves) for Select Board member? Haven't we had enough conflicts of interest and game playing with a former cop (Ken Vincent) and former secretary (Nat Dias) serving on that board?
If Old MacDonald gets elected, what Red Sox jersey will he wear to the meetings?
Bullet Bob and various SB members, who can be best described as Winking, Blinking & Nod, nearly bankrupted this town. We need to make sure that we do not run down this road again. Especially in this economy. I believe the voting public will assess this election accordingly. Good luck to the candidates who run on honest, open, and independent platforms.
Bob has a loyal following. He has always been both truthful and approachable in his time as a SB member and after.
Bob has never lied to me, those saying he has lied how about some "examples"
Bob Miller said the town needed to adopt a slit-tax rate. Michaud said he would NEVER vote for a split tax rate and made it part of his campaign.
In the end Michaud not only voted for a split tax rate, but a much larger split than Miller had proposed!!
Who Lied??? Remind me please.
Seat #5: Joe Michaud. He simply deserves re-election. He's brought stability and civility to the Select Board. Joe has made them into a Board, not just five individuals, once again.
...but he hasn't DONE anything, has he. 3 years of CPR talk...3 YEARS...split tax..no split tax...flip flop
The health fund last year WAS OVER FUNDED....so the turn backs are simply...NOT FROM SAVINGs as Joe supporters say...they are form putting to much $$$ in the fund..pretty simple I hope
This is the Select Board, not the School Com. race. McDonald is a lot of hot air. I get so sick of hearing him when I watch School Com. meetings. I think he likes to hear himself talk. He should stick to school issues, even then, I think most people are sick of him already. We already have a school advocate on the Select Board, Ms. Stone.
As a previous poster said, Friday was the deadline for taking out papers, and, maybe I'm wrong, but if Mr. Pimental was counting on coming in Monday to get them, not only did he miss the deadline, but I think the Town Hall might be closed for President's Day.
So, if Mr. Pimental is that confused over the procedure for nomination and does not know what day it it, I'm glad he cannot get papers. What would he do on the Select Board if he is that confused over the simple things?
Shawn McDonald = school advocate = OVERRIDE. We have two override proponents already on the Board, Ms. Stone and I would bet, Mr. Watson. Let's not make a third mistake so that we are unable to tell the difference between the Select Board and the School Committee.
2:49, who supported backroomed contracts-for-life?
"Bob has a loyal following." The good ol' boys.
Put Shawn in a Yankees shirt. After all, isn't he supposed to be unbiased?
Here's who supported the contracts-for-life:
Bob Miller
Bob Carney
Nat Dias
Kathleen Horan McLean
Mike Gagne
Ed Iacaponi
To 12:49
The split tax rate was opposed for years by the SB run by Mr. Miller. Check your facts. Finally, Mr. Miller changed his position and then supported a minor increase to the portion to be borne by business. The split tax allocation for businesses actually approved was significantly higher than the allocation supported by Mr. Miller. A clear conflict of interest that Mr. Miller exploited to try and benefit himself and some of his supporters.
God forbid we have school advocates. Education is the foundation of our economy. If we are not educating our children, we will not have an educated workforce in up and coming industries.
Im not advocating for more pay for teachers, but investing in our education can not be a bad thing.
BY THE WAY, Dartmouth is right at MNSS...so we are investing the bare minimum allowed by state law.
GET A GRIP!
BY THE WAY, the school department is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars above MNSS. $91,000 for transportation alone. Take the time to find out what's really going on. Like why Dartmouth won't be getting a Race to the Top grant.(Hint: It's the same reason they turned down a math and science grant)
Once you have the answer to that, ask yourself who's investing in the kids.
Bob "Contracts for Life" Miller is a very honest man indeed. I'm sure he'll be letting us all know why the paralegal needed a lifetime contract
Didn't town meeting vote to approve extra money for the schools to buy a textbook series this year? Constantly saying that schools are always funded at the minimum required doesn't make it true. It does turn people off though, which is why MacDonald will go down in flames if he goes through with his bid to have the school department control the select board.
They were 3 year contracts with renewal clauses. Basically the town needed a REASON to fire them. I would expect the same if I was leaving a job to work for the town. No one gives up a career to work for 3 yrs at the whim of an ever changing Select Board.
It's not a matter or question of education. It is a matter of advocating for the WHOLE community, something that the current SB has not been doing lately. Dartmouth residents cannot afford to risk another Select Board member with tunnel vision.
They were AUTOMATIC renewal clauses and the attorney that added them thought it was a bad idea and told them so.
"Assuming this same language was in a number of different contracts in the Town, the Town could have a staff of potentially over-paid individuals doing less important management jobs, conceivably, just because the Town agreed not to let them go without just cause. Virtually every contract, even the union contracts which afford just cause protections, have management escape clauses which afford the employer the ability to terminate an employee at-will for lack of work, etc., as determined by the employer. This one does not"
Look back at Bill's posts about the contracts. He laid out the whole sordid story. The intent was to guarantee the paralegal's job. The rest had to be bought off with the same guarantees to get them to sign off. Why was this done for the paralegal? That's the question!
Anyone thinks the school department is trying to control the Select Board is an idiot and deserves who they vote for.
Also, the schools get additional funding for capital items such as repairs, computers and the reading textbook series just like the DPW gets equipment and the Police get vehicles. No different.
Lastly, the regular transportation costs, K-12, is a town expense as dictated by state law. The SPED and activities transportation costs are a school expense and part of MNSS.
Still wrong, the $91,00 was sent to the school above what the actual transportation costs were. And why do you think that funds spent for computers, books, etc. should not count as adding to MNSS? They are spent on educational materials, aren't they? Is it because it can't be used to hire more administrators?
Once more, ask our School Committee if we will be getting a Race to the Top grant and if not, why not?
Everyone knows the Race to the Top grant will only be awarded to the those communities that have the teacher's union signed and on board. Dartmouth's Teachers Union or at least their executive board voted no to participate in the grant application. The exec board is following the MTA (state board) guidance on this issue.
The leadership of the DEA is weak and listens and follows in lockstep with the MTA. When the locals were on the DEA, it had a much stronger local appeal to it than it does now.
OK you've said on this blog that the teacher's union rejected more money for our kids. I don't care if they followed the MTA. This is our kids we're talking about.
Where's the School Committee on this? Where are the parents?
This is exactly why the town won't "invest". It's not for the kids!
The School Committee voted in a meeting to have the grant signed by Dr. Russell and forwarded to the state even though the DEA refused to sign.
Seems to me they wanted it more than the teachers. What is your problem with that?
Speaking of teacher's union, has anybody heard any results from the collective bargaining? The contracts have all expired.
The teacher unions in other towns and cities signed to get the grants after a ruckus was raised. Where's the ruckus in Dartmouth? We won't get the money and nobody says a word about that. You'd increase taxes on everyone and you turn away free money? Sound fair to you?
What about the kids? They'd benefit from the grant but can't because the teachers say no. You OK with that?
Like I said, that's why the town won't "invest".
No surprise to me all is quiet on the teacher's contract. Why? What do they dare ask for? What (ha-ha) are they willing to give back? It wouldn't surprise me if they figure they would only lose some of what they have now and are perfectly content with the status quo. Alternatives? Bad PR, a strike, frozen wages and benefits? Don't hold your breath on this one.
Why was this done for the paralegal? That's the question! Sometimes things are done for the greater good. I am sure Bill will tell you he has reservations about special deals in Obama's health care bill, but even with his reservations he is in favor of it.
In politics sometimes you have to make little compromises to get the important deals done.
Anonymous said...
"Why was this done for the paralegal? That's the question! Sometimes things are done for the greater good. I am sure Bill will tell you he has reservations about special deals in Obama's health care bill, but even with his reservations he is in favor of it.
In politics sometimes you have to make little compromises to get the important deals done."
Do you want an answer to your question? Because your next statements appear to imply that, just maybe, there was a good reason that the paralegal and seven other town employees got the sweet deal of a job-and-financial-protection-for-life contract and automatic contract renewal language.
I'm going to hope that that was not your intent and that you do not agree with them.
However, if there were a good reason for these contracts, the residents of Dartmouth would like to know. The contracts had the potential to do much damage to the taxpayers' financial status, while at the same time greatly enhancing the eight town employees fortunate to have finagled this over-the-top deal.
Because, how is a job-and-financial-protection-for-life-contract and automatic contract renewal language "done for the greater good"?
Whose "greater good"? Certainly not the taxpayers who, thankfully, were apprised of this sweet deal before it cost taxpayers too much money. As it was, we had to enter into litigation to settle the contract-for-life issue with Mr. Gagne. Certainly not the "greater good" for the taxpayers, would you say?
Maybe you have to make "little compromises" in government to get the "important deals" done. But I would like to ask, what are the "little compromises" with respect to these clandestine contracts that would have remained so except for the fact that they were finally exposed, under the publics right-to-know act? Taxpayer ignorance of these sweet deal contracts?
What we didn't know wouldn't hurt us?
What was of so great an importance in Dartmouth at the time that these sweet deals had to be concocted? What was happening in our own town that could have been classified as an "important deal" that had to be "done"?
I'm honestly more familiar with the running of Dartmouth's government since 2006, so perhaps there is something I may have missed (shame on me) that other townspeople may have missed, as well, because it seems to me that when news of these job-and- financial protection-for-life contracts hit the papers and the public finally knew, there was a lot of outrage among Dartmouth residents who felt betrayed by our leaderhip and officials, let alone others from outside our area that had plenty to say about the shoddy treatment we here in Dartmouth had gotten from our town leadership and elected Select Board officials at the time. Two Board members directly participated in the contract-for-life negotiations, and the remaining three got on board after the fact when their two fellow Board members had made the contracts a done deal, and signed off on them.
Did anyone involved in those contracts-for-life ever even give a thought to the Dartmouth taxpayers?
Thank you, but , no, I don't want any further part of officials and leaders who would stoop so low.
Does anyone know what ever is happening with the rest of the sweetheart contracts? Are they going to stay with their high salaries? Why not can them like they did to Gagne?
Are they going to stay with their high salaries? Why not can them like they did to Gagne?
Gagne's replacement was hired for MORE money than Gagne with less experience. Tell me again how that is a good deal???
All the years in the world in a job don't really count all that much if the job the person WAS HIRED TO DO WASN"T DONE. Does that answer your question?
Besides, for all we know, you might be one of the people who are always crying, you get what y ou pay for.
It was time to stop paying for what we weren't getting.
Does that answer your question??
No it doesn't answer my question at all!
Show me what Cressman has done since hired..... I will wait for an answer.
For the record I never said you get what you paid for.
Cressman has done less than Gagne for more money.. No way that is a good deal for the town.
Mr. Cressman is not even five months into the job yet.
Mr. Cressman is not even five months into the job yet.
So NOTHING. I would like to know what he has accomplished in another year... about as much time as Michaud and Gagne worked together.
More money, less results. Thanks Michaud.
Gagne is gone. Get over it. Your anger and bitterness will only eat you up inside. Mike Gagne has moved on and so should you. I wish the best for Mike.
From what I have seen so far, David Cressman has been impressive. I think we are shifting to governance that is more about ALL the people of this town and that's a good thing.
From what I have seen so far, David Cressman has been impressive.
Do you have any examples?
Cressman is impressive alright... lets see what happened in Tewksbury..
He NEGOITIATED himself a 9% raise and 5% in each of the following 2 years, while at the same time addressing a budget deficit of almost 2 millions dollars. Layoffs occurred in Tewksbury to pay for his raise and car allowance, as well as 7500.00 for his 401k to go along with his pension.
Hard working people were let go to to pay for this EGOMANICS raise and the was quoted as saying it is nice to be wanted!!!!
This is important because MICHAUD wanted this guy to run our town. The scorched earth policy of Michaud continues in an attempt to shore up his resume for his run at Quinn's seat.
Now in his 17th year as Tewksbury's chief executive officer, Cressman's annual base salary will rise on July 1 from $111,450 to $120,000. His compensation will for the first time include a $7,500 tax-sheltered annuity, and his monthly car allowance will be raised from $480 to $545. His base salary will rise 5 percent in each of the two following years.
To narrow the budget deficit of about $1.9 million for the fiscal year starting July 1, Cressman, like most of his colleagues, will have to seek cuts in various programs.
This April vote is an opportunity to elect people who will represent all of us on the Select Board. We should be wary of someone who has any type of agenda whatsoever, whether it be to a particular issue or an allegiance to a select group of people, or both.
When a person running for office could well be running out of spite or to push through a personal agenda, then that person will not be representative of the entire Dartmouth community and will do us a great disservice if elected.
10:15, where did you get your information?
Bob Miller doesn't care about the taxpayer. He takes care of his constituents, the town employees. He had to give Gagne, a no cut contract so he could get one for the paralegal. Why did the paralegal need at no cut contract?
From the get go, the attorney drafting the contract said it was a bad idea in an email to the paralegal.
"While I am usually in the position of affording management, not the employees, with the most protections, and while I am not usually asked to bind a Town with more restrictive contractual language, since you have indicated that the Select Board (read Bob Miller here) wants to accommodate your concerns regarding funding, just cause protections, negotiable wages and job security, I have drafted some clauses which you and the Board might find useful to meet your shared objectives."
The fact that Gagne let this go on with his employee, the paralegal, and then got a no cut contract himself was enough to let him go. Bob Miller was at the bottom of it though. He wants Gagne back so he can continue to get his way. I don't think the managers now are going to be pushed around.
Make no mistake a vote for Miller is a vote for shady deals and giving the town employees whatever they want. Here's the question, Why was the paralegal so important?
10:15, where did you get your information?
Tewksbury newspaper for his contract information. Layoff info is online.
From what I have seen so far, David Cressman has been impressive.
Yeah he looks like a world win too me. The only people that care for the guy are the ones controlling the current Board. April is around the corner, we will see how letting key people go, will work out in the voting booth. Nothing better that a strangers running our Town.
Well, I guess the good old boys were better.
Well, I guess the good old boys were better
Yes they were, at least you did not need an appointment to speak with them!
By the way the employees that obtained the so called life long contract did not belong to a Union, and now they do, it happens to be the STEELE WORKS UNION, good luck on trying to push them around. You will probably find a HORSES HEAD in your bed. A certain small group of people want to blame the Towns financial speed bump on Town employees, it was the economy, Dartmouth hit the wall first and came out ahead first. The only reason Dartmouth has a surplus now, is because of the split tax rate, the pay as you throw, and other fees imposed on the TAX PAYERS, by those who call them selves fiscal conservatives. April is just around the corner, see you at the election polls!
Post a Comment