On
March 7, 2013, I posted a blog “Interesting
Legal Situation”. Within this blog is a link to an e-mail exchange between
Town Counsel, Chris Stewart and myself. The e-mail thread concerns having legal
counsel review Citizen petitions. Chris wrote:
From: "stewy5@comcast.net"
<stewy5@comcast.net>
Date: March 5, 2013 2:19:59 PM EST
To: Julie Farrell <jfarrell59@gmail.com>
Cc: PDeRensis@aol.com, towncoordinator@templeton1.org, pderensis@dwboston.com Subject: Re: 1156:6
Date: March 5, 2013 2:19:59 PM EST
To: Julie Farrell <jfarrell59@gmail.com>
Cc: PDeRensis@aol.com, towncoordinator@templeton1.org, pderensis@dwboston.com Subject: Re: 1156:6
My only concern is that if we spend money for
legal to write a citizens petition motion, are we setting a precedent to do
this? As Julie stated we have not done so in the past and I feel the citizens
do not want us spending town finances this way. Therefore my opinion is we do
not start this trend.
Chris
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
My
question is, “What is good government?” Why is there one set of rules as a member
of the BOS and a very different set of rules for the Light and Water
Commissioners?
Example 1 - Under Chapter 164 the
manager of the Light and Water plant has a lot of authority. Did the manager of
TMLWP have the legal authority to expend $10,000 on a Citizen Petition? Yes, he
does have that authority! However, it is the Commissioners job to oversee the
manager; to provide direction and guidance.
The
Chairman if TMLWP Commissioners, Dana Blais stated in the Gardner
News on March 26, 2013:
“It’s
his job to find out by any means
what would transpire if a petition like this had passed. …” [Emphasis added].
In
my opinion, expending $10,000 of ratepayer money to determine the legality of a
Citizens Petition is excessive. The $10,000 expenditure to determine the
legality of a Citizen petition is in direct opposition to the position taken by
the Chairman of the BOS regarding using legal counsel for Citizen petitions.
The Chairman of the BOS also serves as a Light and Water Commissioner.
Different
rules for different boards = bad government.
Example 2 – Open Meeting Law (OML)
Complaints
On
March 14, 2013 The Office of the Attorney General issued a determination on the
OML complaints I filed against the TMLWP Commissioners in May, June and July of
2012. [Full
Text of the determination]. OML
website.
“ii. The
Water Commission's May 1, 2012 Discussion Regarding a Town Fluoride Vote Was
Not Appropriate for Executive Session Under the Open Meeting Law. “
“iii. The
Board Failed to Comply with Certain Procedural Requirements Before Convening in
Executive Session. “
“iv. The Board Failed to Comply With Notice Posting
Requirements under the Open Meeting Law. “
“v. The Board
Failed to Conduct a Periodic Review to Justify Continued Nondisclosure of
Executive Session Minutes under the Open Meeting Law. “
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons stated above, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by
failing to follow required procedures for entering into executive session and
by failing to include sufficient detail about anticipated discussion topics in
its meeting notices. We also find that the Water Commission violated the Open
Meeting Law by improperly discussing a topic that was not appropriate for
executive session behind closed doors. We order immediate and future compliance
with the Open Meeting Law, and caution that future similar violations may be
considered evidence of intent to violate the Law. In addition, we order the
Board to view the video training on the Open Meeting Law available at the
Attorney General's website, and certify in writing to our office, within thirty
(30) days after receiving this determination, that all of its members have done
so.
Finally, we
order the Board to review the minutes from the executive session of both
meetings and: (1) release all portions that were not appropriate for discussion
in executive session; and (2) determine whether continued non-disclosure of the
portions of the discussion that were appropriate for executive session under
the Open Meeting Law is warranted, and publicly announce that determination
during an open session meeting. Both aspects of this review must occur within
thirty (30) days of receiving this determination. “
Again,
different rules for different boards. However the Attorney General disagrees.
What
is good government?
I
have been accused of having an “agenda”. I do have an “agenda”. My “agenda” is
to implement good governmental practices in the Town of Templeton. That is my
“agenda”. My goal is decide and vote on issues that I believe are in the best
interest of the residents, citizens, taxpayers and ratepayers (the
“shareholders”) in the Town of Templeton. For too long Templeton town
government has been in disarray and factionalized.
My
goal in posting blogs is to provide the citizens of Templeton with information,
which in the past was never revealed, even with public record requests. I
believe in our town coordinator’s mantra “Facts, Law, Transparency” I believe
if we follow the guidelines of “Facts, Law, Transparency” we can achieve good
government in Templeton. [On a personal note, I would add “Accountability” to
the mantra.]
With
new town counsel, a new treasurer, a new accountant and a new town coordinator,
Templeton can begin the process of moving toward good governmental policies,
practices and procedures.
The
election on April 30th, will decide the direction of the Town. Will
we continue to make progress along the path to good government? Or will we
return to the days of no accountability, no transparency, no facts and very
expensive “law”?
I
plan on supporting candidates who will work toward good government.
My
opinion…supported by FACTS ! ! !
Julie
Farrell
Like Farrell would know what good government is.
ReplyDeleteDid you even bother to read what is written above? She has a damn better sense of it compared to the dummies that try to ruined this town, like you!
DeleteLike ya! Like she does know what like good government is. Like thanks for like pointing that like out.
DeleteOnly the people who don't respect or follow the rules think Julie is bad. Because she calls it like she sees it. Look at who hurls the insults at her. Usually people who do not want their actions questioned. Interesting that the L&W were found in violation of OMLs. I believe these were the kinds of actions that concerned customers were trying to bring to the attention of the town. Seems they knew the OMLs better than L&W did. I hope they pay attention in their class.
ReplyDeleteThat's absolutely right. The only people who object to Mrs. Farrell are the ones who do not want to follow the rules. Julie tries to run govt. the way this Republic was set up by our founding fathers with checks & balances so that no one person or group can get everything they want all the time as this echo hill clan has that has nearly ruined us. Greed is usually the downfall of every person & every govt. It is always follow the money trail & look where it ends up. The same people are usually tied to every mess. Thank goodness Templeton has Julie who has been willing to give of her precious time to help correct the wrongs that have been done here or we would already be in State receivership. Thanks to all the others who share the same goal of saving Templeton from total ruin. I appreciate you all.
DeleteAt the past BOS Meeting I made mention that it was the time for the Light and Water commissioners to learn how to run a meeting. Chris was not going to touch that with a ten foot pole. I am sick of these men crying because Julie caught them again, not following the rules. Julie has ethics, plain and simple. She knows right from wrong, and I will always have her back. Our town can not continue like this much longer. We all have worked to get good people to work for us, and they deserve our backing. Now we need two people who will continue to work with the people already there, to benefit the town, not them selves. This is my opinion, Bev.
Delete