Paul working for you.
Monday, April 22, 2013
L&W Letter
This letter shows that something is not right at Light and Water. Seems like the same mentality concerning public records is at work again. I had once requested a public, complaint from town employee against a selectmen, it was denied with a response from the town counsel, Kopelman & Paige. After the same complaint was used at a BOS meeting and a copy of same was given to a newspaper reporter so I requested it again and again denied. I then requested a copy of resume of the con com agent, again denied. So I went to Winchendon where the con com agent was the same individual for Templeton and requested his resume and I walked out with a copy in hand 10 minutes after asking. When I asked at a Templeton selectmen meeting about this, I was told by Bob Columbus and Carol Skelton, "we can't talk about resumes" Picking and choosing what documents will be given out and what will not is the exact opposite of what Templeton needs, open, honest, transparent governance. So one legal opinion is held back and another is handed over, why is that? If one document cannot be given out because of Attorney client privilege, then why is the other one okay to hand out? This is how conspiracy and other arguments begin. Mr. Driscoll and the Light commissioners may not like what is in the document but give it out and end all speculation. One light commissioner said "we do things right over here" Apparently not true. Mr. Driscoll can expect more requests and even perhaps a legal challenge to his reasoning for the denial of access to records payed for by the taxpayers. The okay for that bill had to go through selectmen to be okay-ed to be paid. If the selectmen really worked for the residents, they would not have signed off on that bill until it is released. But it is apparent, a majority of the BOS do not work for the taxpayers. At least we know two of them will be gone after April 30 election. That is my unfiltered opinion on this matter.
Jeffrey Bennett
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is a solution to this. We can continue with a municipal operation, or we can pursue selling this town asset. At that point, the "investor owned" utility would be subject to the same laws that we cannot hold TMLP to. Including paying taxes to the town.
ReplyDeleteThis just brings back memories for me.
ReplyDeleteI remember the time Mr. Driscoll inquired about a possible conflict if interest between a commissioner and her daughter. I figured out he was referring to me. I had already filed a notice of disclosure with the town clerk as I am required to do by LAW - in order to avoid a conflict of interest or an appearance of conflict of interest.
Driscoll obtains an opinion from K+P about the "conflict" and then would not release the opinion to ANY of the commissioners. No other commissioner thought that was odd. I think I wrote a blog about this!
Yes I did write a blog it! I'll repost it soon! So what did the commissioners do? Did they vote to have the opinion released? Hell NO! They scheduled an executive session to discuss my blog! They discussed my blog in executive session while I was at a different meeting. I come back and the commissioners were aghast that I would write a blog about the situation.There you go! Open and honest government TMLWP style!
Vote SMART!
vote smart
ReplyDeleteOn that side of the fence Mark, Templetom might gain financially from the selling price, taxes to the town and expenses to the town such as payroll, retirement,etc would no longer be added to future budgets but the town is stuck with the retirement they have now from light, certainly something to consider and to look into, just what might the Templeton light bring on the open market. A good question for some investor owned utilities, how much would you pay for Templeton light? Certainly if the taxes brought in were to be more than what the light dept "gives" to the town now, it could be worth it from a pure financial point. Future taxes paid to the town vs what is actually gained now. Mark, as always your points are most welcome.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand The Light and Water Commissioners can give big raises to their people every year, even though none of our town departments are so lucky. The commissioners can buy, what ever they need, and we will get the crumbs that are left. My husband brought up the idea of selling the light company a while back. We could get our selves out of debt, have money for a school, with out going to the poor house. We could get things done, that will never happen any other way, and pay the same electric rate as Gardner. Our own rates will go up, sooner or later, simply because we are not invested in natural gas. Natural gas is cheap and there is a lot of it. I think the biggest failure of the light and water departments, are when things go wrong, like when the water dept. could not make a payment, they just turn around and sock it to the rate payers. In private industry, they would look at their operation, to see how they would change things in their business first, but not these guys, it is easier to charge their customers, and the customer has no voice. The town can not run, with no money, I do not care how you cut it. What good will it be to have a town with no one being able to live here?? My opinion, Bev.
DeleteJeff - When a company acquires a business, the pensions can go with the sold business. The seller can have no pension liability after the sale. That is a fact, at least for private industry.
DeleteI am not convinced selling the Light department is beneficial. I think that is a shortsighted approach. I would need to see a thorough analysis and audit performed, before I could endorse the idea.
ReplyDeleteThe service provided by our Light department is exceptional; it is also expensive. For a town that does not have any vital businesses or hospitals, we would be one of the last communities to have our electricity restored by a non-muni. It is expensive to have the personnel trained to respond to emergencies and crises.
I do wish the commissioners would be accessible and forthcoming with information. Instead of coming to the table to negotiate a PILOT payment, the manager consults with legal counsel (using OUR $$$) to produce the opinion above. This opinion is based on Chapter 164 section 56 and comes to the conclusion that the light department does not have to follow a vote of town meeting to negotiate a PILOT agreement. So THERE! Basically it is an opinion telling the voters at town meeting, they don't care what you vote or how you vote on a CITIZEN petition about the PILOT payment, they will do whatever they want!
I would like to see if that attitude can change before contemplating selling off the Light department. That is one of the reasons I plan to
VOTE SMART!
Julie - Think of which functions a town should provide. One function that is questionable is electricity. We get only a pittance from TML, more would be forthcoming were taxes paid. Those taxes should be used to provide municipal services. Services that are not provided by private enterprise.
DeleteJulie - This is the second time in a the last month that I have heard the same arguement to answer different questions. And it came from two people, one a seated Selectman(you) and once from a candidate. (Mr. Morrison) And I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to most of the financial problems in this town are increasing the amounts of business in town. Templeton can not sustain itself on corner markets, coffee shops, and antiques stores. We, as a town, need to attract larger businesses. It's the only way to keep residential tax rates low. Businesses will build our tax base, increase local jobs, and bring in outside money. Bedroom towns do not work unless you are located close enough to a major metropolitan area where people can commute to. Boston is too far away and there is nothing between here and there that will sustain us.
We need business in this town and we need it very badly.
I agree, selling the light plant looks like a very shortsighted answer to a long term problem.
My opinions...
Fellow Phil, I also agree as long as the industry/business that moves in is not a waste treatment facility.
DeleteI understand what everyone is saying, but think about this, The cost of the light company keeps going up. Their payroll is nothing to sneeze at. What happens when the cost out weighs the benefit? There is no lid we can put on, what they pay for wages, or what they spend. The deals they make, like the wind turbine, cost us money, and we do not have any idea how much!! Being in the dark because of downed lines, is no different than us being in the dark now!! We have been in the dark and did not even know it!! Wonder why we have trust issues!! These are things to think about. One more thing, if we sold the light co. it would level the playing field. As things stand now, we are living from pay check to pay check. One big disaster would wipe us out, not unlike some of the people who live in this town. I can not see any other way for us to get ahead. My opinion, Bev
DeleteMr. Brooks - while we disagree, and that's fine, I would like to make a case for why it is not "short sighted" to sell Light to private enterprise.
ReplyDeleteShort-sighted would be a decision without much thought, which one would quickly regret. While we disagree, I would not characterize your position as "short sighted".
Most neighboring towns have private enterprise provided electricity. Those people are not in dire straights because of that fact. Rather, one might argue they are in better financial shape than Templeton. Maybe not because of that, but you can certainly not say we are inarguably better off with "Public Power".
I won't repeat my case for at least investigating the sale of this town-owned asset. I've posted that a few times before. We can disagree, but not necessarily due to one or the other of us being "short-sighted".